Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else? (Read 193970 times)

Mantis · « **Reply #625 on:** April 21, 2015, 07:50 »

Quote from: andy_arden on April 21, 2015, 05:11

Hey Shutterstock ...WAKE THE F..K UP!!!!! Uploading for over 5 years...over 20k photos and again i have accepted 2/80 photos. What .? What drunk and incompetent reviewers are you paying? All photos refused for WB and focus...yeah right...accepted on all agencies, tripled checked by me before uploading and you give me idiotic motives.. Thanks again. I won't upload anymore until you fire that morons who review.

Wow. Definitely something going on there based on many of these posts.

sunlover · « **Reply #626 on:** April 21, 2015, 08:00 »

They do seem to be a bit brutal lately.

However, with submitting to several agencies (16) I often find that what gets rejected on one, will usually sell on another.

As long as somebody buys it, I'm good. I do not depend on this for my main source of income. This is planned to be my retirement beer-money in the near future!

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #627 on:** April 21, 2015, 08:47 »

Quote from: sunlover on April 21, 2015, 08:00

They do seem to be a bit brutal lately.

However, with submitting to several agencies (16) I often find that what gets rejected on one, will usually sell on another.

As long as somebody buys it, I'm good. I do not depend on this for my main source of income. This is planned to be my retirement beer-money in the near future!

I want stuff to sell on Shutterstock mostly. They sell like 15:1 compared to some other agencies. 20:1 to others. Any image rejected doesnt make you money.

No Free Lunch · « **Reply #628 on:** April 21, 2015, 09:13 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on April 21, 2015, 08:47

Quote from: sunlover on April 21, 2015, 08:00
They do seem to be a bit brutal lately.

However, with submitting to several agencies (16) I often find that what gets rejected on one, will usually sell on another.

As long as somebody buys it, I'm good. I do not depend on this for my main source of income. This is planned to be my retirement beer-money in the near future!

I want stuff to sell on Shutterstock mostly. They sell like 15:1 compared to some other agencies. 20:1 to others. Any image rejected doesnt make you money.

Since Shutter makes around 35% of my overall income I tend to shoot for them and than I do a few artsy shots for some of the other sites. So getting rejected by Shutter really hits the pocket book

Thomas from France · « **Reply #629 on:** April 21, 2015, 13:41 »

Quote from: Thomas from France on April 18, 2015, 07:33

Quote from: Thomas from France on April 10, 2015, 05:02
Quote from: Thomas from France on April 08, 2015, 14:54
Hi all,
I'im new to forum,from France, in Stock Since 2012, sorry for my english
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

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...

End : Image approved (after 3 rejections)

I think the reviewer's son is playing with daddy's keyboard.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #630 on:** April 21, 2015, 14:54 »

Quote from: Thomas from France on April 21, 2015, 13:41

End : Image approved (after 3 rejections)

I think the reviewer's son is playing with daddy's keyboard.

worst case scenario -
dad, son, pet monkey are all registered reviewers of ss
all 3 clueless about microstock, but knows how to click rejection.
,,, by the time mom gets to it,
she is the only one who knows about photography.
your image is approved

enstoker · « **Reply #631 on:** April 21, 2015, 15:40 »

And if we - for 30 cents working ants, want to tell Mr. Oringer, about his stupid reviewers, he will have no time for listening us. Because he must give another interview, telling how perfect his company is.

Or, SS has new politics, because of too many photos in their library : REJECT 98 % !

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #632 on:** April 21, 2015, 17:17 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on April 21, 2015, 08:47

Any image rejected doesnt make you money.

hmm, now that's something i never thought of before...
when million images are rejected , only reviewers make money
contributors only make money if images get approved.
we should ask the million$ question, in whose benefit is it to have more rejections
and re-submissions (and yes, they do all get approved eventually)..

leaf · « **Reply #633 on:** April 22, 2015, 06:39 »

Quote from: andy_arden on April 21, 2015, 05:11

Hey Shutterstock ...WAKE THE F..K UP!!!!! Uploading for over 5 years...over 20k photos and again i have accepted 2/80 photos. What .? What drunk and incompetent reviewers are you paying? All photos refused for WB and focus...yeah right...accepted on all agencies, tripled checked by me before uploading and you give me idiotic motives.. Thanks again. I won't upload anymore until you fire that morons who review.

I won't moderate this post, but please watch your language. Being rude/vulgar doesn't help in making any changes at Shutterstock.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #634 on:** April 22, 2015, 06:47 »

Quote from: leaf on April 22, 2015, 06:39

Quote from: andy_arden on April 21, 2015, 05:11
Hey Shutterstock ...WAKE THE F..K UP!!!!! Uploading for over 5 years...over 20k photos and again i have accepted 2/80 photos. What .? What drunk and incompetent reviewers are you paying? All photos refused for WB and focus...yeah right...accepted on all agencies, tripled checked by me before uploading and you give me idiotic motives.. Thanks again. I won't upload anymore until you fire that morons who review.

I won't moderate this post, but please watch your language. Being rude/vulgar doesn't help in making any changes at Shutterstock.

I fully understand your comment Tyler, but it show that people are getting frustrated over these rejections. I get it if they reject my snapshot landscape or whatever, but if you have seasoned pros, 5 years or longer, with 20,000 images (!) getting 99% rejections, or even Sean/Laurin getting rejections, somethng is the matter. Writing SS (as per Scott's advice) doesnt work either because they defend the bogus rejections. Communications from SS have disappeared as well with his departure, which only adds to the frustration, leaving everyone in limbo.

andy_arden · « **Reply #635 on:** April 22, 2015, 07:20 »

sorry for the language, but is really really frustrating being the insult of some so called "reviewers". i was expecting RESPECT from a company as big and successful as Shutterstock.

Mantis · « **Reply #636 on:** April 22, 2015, 07:36 »

Quote from: andy_arden on April 22, 2015, 07:20

sorry for the language, but is really really frustrating being the insult of some so called "reviewers". i was expecting RESPECT from a company as big and successful as Shutterstock.

It isn't about respect. It's about fair inspections and reasonably explained rejections. As many have rightfully pointed out there is not sufficient, accurate rejection reasons. I would have to conclude that something is happening beyond Atilla the reviewer. It's like they are choosing to use the same reviewers as Fotolia. No rhyme, no reason, no basis for rejection other than the review doesn't like the work or it is competing with the inspectors' own work. It's crazy behavior and Shutterstock should be all over this, or at least communicating to us as to what submission requirements have changed to trigger so many rejections.

Rinderart · « **Reply #637 on:** April 22, 2015, 11:53 »

Quote from: Mantis on April 22, 2015, 07:36

Quote from: andy_arden on April 22, 2015, 07:20
sorry for the language, but is really really frustrating being the insult of some so called "reviewers". i was expecting RESPECT from a company as big and successful as Shutterstock.

It isn't about respect. It's about fair inspections and reasonably explained rejections. As many have rightfully pointed out there is not sufficient, accurate rejection reasons. I would have to conclude that something is happening beyond Atilla the reviewer. It's like they are choosing to use the same reviewers as Fotolia. No rhyme, no reason, no basis for rejection other than the review doesn't like the work or it is competing with the inspectors' own work. It's crazy behavior and Shutterstock should be all over this, or at least communicating to us as to what submission requirements have changed to trigger so many rejections.

+++++++ One trillion!!!!!!! But...I hate to say, the boss sits there as sees 250,000 a week accepted and goes "Thats fine" No Problems here.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #638 on:** April 22, 2015, 12:02 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on April 22, 2015, 06:47

Quote from: leaf on April 22, 2015, 06:39
Quote from: andy_arden on April 21, 2015, 05:11
Hey Shutterstock ...WAKE THE F..K UP!!!!!

I won't moderate this post, but please watch your language. Being rude/vulgar doesn't help in making any changes at Shutterstock.
but if you have seasoned pros, 5 years or longer, with 20,000 images (!) getting 99% rejections, or even Sean/Laurin getting rejections, somethng is the matter. Communications from SS have disappeared as well with his departure, which only adds to the frustration, leaving everyone in limbo.

we may all be missing the fine prints until we look at what i highlighted ...
frustrating the experienced contributors.
maybe that is what ss wants , frustrate the old contributors so they go away...
to stocksy canva etc since they are the ones complaining
promoting newbies with low cost equipment (mob photos)
obviously the clients no longer need sharp images from Sean/Laurin etc
only barely in focus nouveau blurring stuff you see on the homepage

Rinderart · « **Reply #639 on:** April 22, 2015, 13:25 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on April 22, 2015, 06:47

Quote from: leaf on April 22, 2015, 06:39
Quote from: andy_arden on April 21, 2015, 05:11
Hey Shutterstock ...WAKE THE F..K UP!!!!! Uploading for over 5 years...over 20k photos and again i have accepted 2/80 photos. What .? What drunk and incompetent reviewers are you paying? All photos refused for WB and focus...yeah right...accepted on all agencies, tripled checked by me before uploading and you give me idiotic motives.. Thanks again. I won't upload anymore until you fire that morons who review.

I won't moderate this post, but please watch your language. Being rude/vulgar doesn't help in making any changes at Shutterstock.

I fully understand your comment Tyler, but it show that people are getting frustrated over these rejections. I get it if they reject my snapshot landscape or whatever, but if you have seasoned pros, 5 years or longer, with 20,000 images (!) getting 99% rejections, or even Sean/Laurin getting rejections, somethng is the matter. Writing SS (as per Scott's advice) doesnt work either because they defend the bogus rejections. Communications from SS have disappeared as well with his departure, which only adds to the frustration, leaving everyone in limbo.

Ya know throughout My 10 years at SS, I've had some rejections along the way But 99% of them were pointed out and they were absolutely My fault, I fixed them and there in.. Now, I get zero rejections if I play it safe with Portraits and or Photos of paintings.

I did a 4000 Mile trip shooting specifically the Blooming aspen tree scenes in the high Mountains of New mexico near the Colorado Border . I thought they were spectacular...I really did and think Im somewhat fairly good at that. Tons rejected for WB and Lighting.Every site took them and they were benchmark Images of that incredible Place compared to databases and a expensive trip, Also a ton of Images of the Chili growing fields along the Mexican Border, Same rejection reason and was the beginning of "somethings really wrong here". One Image got through and is my #1 selling landscape.

Then a few Months ago, I searched my HD gazillion Images for subjects that Might work well for the filtered/Instagram look and feel, Along with some stuff that Might work as Blurred Images...That newbies don't seem to have a problem with getting them accepted. Im not a fan of either style But, Im not against making a few dollars either. Submitted 42.....40 rejected for Lighting and WB.

Im not at all Mad in anyway, Just frustrated as to what . is going On?? And, If any one of my other sites agreed...At least I might understand it better. Suddenly my 55 years behind a camera, Being a reviewer for 3+ years,Helping Critique 1000's of others, Shooting for major national products means nothing whatsoever. This issue is by far something that cannot be dismissed by SS. They MUST address this and I mean Now.

Sure, Like said , They can sit back and say "250,000 accepted last week" And think they have no Problem. But, Theres a problem, They simply do not recognize or acknowledge it. We are back to Zero Communication with the folks we support, Maybe Scott's departure was because he did communicate or at least tried the best he could and someone said to keep your mouth shut....... What else can we think without communication?? Im sick of all these threads Here and on SS, What can we do? Who do we write? This is not Personal in anyway. This is business and for a lot of us, Our Livelihood and our time involved trying to produce the best we can with Knowledge and experience..

Funny Fact. a few weeks ago I joked around telling Folks on the critique forum with focus issues. "Blur it and re-submit" They took it to heart, Did it and guess what? accepted. Thats where we are.

The "New and Improved" rejection reasons SUCK!!!!!! They don't want it. Just say so, * it! Stop with confusing reasons that make no sense at all and Bogus reasons that do not relate to the image in any way. And...I've said before there is no way they know that 200+ reviewers around the world use calibrated Monitors let alone Laptops.

PLEASE SS..... Talk to us, so we can stop this wasting of Our time, your time and reviewers time. Out of respect!!!!!.

OK...So tell me Im just a trouble maker. I am NOT!! But I will stand up when somethings wrong and I/we believe there is. Look at your own site. I've never seen so much talk about anything in 10 years. And it's not about a New person with OOF Images who gripes. This is quite different. 36,332 views Just here.

Will we get a response? Don't bet on it. Someone doesn't want that to happen.

Last Post On this subject.....it does nothing and makes me feel like chit and thats not the way we should feel For the measly commissions we get. But, thats another story. And like quite a few others here. Waiting for a new site with new ideas that treats us fair. This is not the end of the world and could be fixed and at the very least addressed.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #640 on:** April 22, 2015, 13:40 »

Quote from: Rinderart on April 22, 2015, 13:25

, I get zero rejections if I play it safe with Portraits and or Photos of paintings.

Suddenly my 55 years behind a camera, Being a reviewer for 3+ years,Helping Critique 1000's of others, Shooting for major national products means nothing whatsoever.

precisely as i said. keep on making your redundant stuff to make yourself even more redundant .
but if you go with what nouveau bs the newbies are doing and getting accepted
you will get 100% rejection for out of focus.
they do want out of focus neuveau stuff , but not from you... from those who won't whine at earning 28 cts a day.
it's almost like you playing music... no one wants to old greats coming out with new stuff,
they want them to just go away and die.

aly · « **Reply #641 on:** April 22, 2015, 17:09 »

I agree with the comments made by Rinderart. Just got a whole batch of abstract designs rejected for NOISE when previous lots almost same were accepted. Very very frustrating and time wasting. Never had a noise problem before. Why can't someone write a letter and we can all sign it saying we are not happy with the reviewers?

Red Dove · « **Reply #642 on:** April 23, 2015, 09:11 »

Apparently I've forgotten how to achieve crisp focus in my editorial work using an 18mp or 16mp camera - but not with my tired old 10mp camera. Either way, something is afoot - or a leg, or even a wing if you happen to be an SS inspector.

cascoly · « **Reply #643 on:** April 23, 2015, 17:06 »

Quote from: Rinderart on April 22, 2015, 13:25

.....

I did a 4000 Mile trip shooting specifically the Blooming aspen tree scenes in the high Mountains of New mexico near the Colorado Border . I thought they were spectacular...I really did and think Im somewhat fairly good at that. Tons rejected for WB and Lighting.Every site took them and they were benchmark Images of that incredible Place compared to databases and a expensive trip, Also a ton of Images of the Chili growing fields along the Mexican Border, Same rejection reason and was the beginning of "somethings really wrong here". One Image got through and is my #1 selling landscape.
.....

I've had similar problems getting rejects ranging from landscapes from Utah to temples in Cambodia using late afternoon light -- rejected for WB or 'lighting' -- as if the reviewers are checking histograms and never looking at the actual images

another oddity - editorial images seem to incur these rejections less frequently (I often have both editorial and rf images taken at same time & place - editorials get in while others get kicked for 'lighting'

samards · « **Reply #644 on:** April 24, 2015, 04:21 »

It is obvious that the policy of the company changed a bit, since a lots of the photos have been uploaded recently, so they want to restrict that. We also complained about that in this forum

So, they got new rules - probably only the photo with perfect histogram (from 10 - 245, in the middle) + warm colors, no noise and no shallow DOF will pass. They can do that - they are the best. So, as long as we are struggling and improving our photos to what they want - and uploading them for 25c/38c per download, they will have even benefit of this, as the new photos will be the perfect stock ones.

Only, there is the catch - as this can be highly demotivating as well...

So, I was thinking - why is there almost no reviews on iStock - there almost everything pass - but - isn't that actually what stock photography should be? If you are good enough to join them, your photos should be good enough for stock without much technical screening. Tones of photos for little price - that should be essence of stock photography by my opinion. If you have a better quality photos, then you should treat it a little better, and not sell it for cents, I guess.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #645 on:** April 24, 2015, 08:49 »

I am really getting tired of this. There's no rhyme nor reason to their rejections and acceptance. I am not going to post examples. I just wish SOMEONE FROM SHUTTERSTOCK WOULD TELL US SOMETHING. PLEASE?

Thanks.

tickstock · « **Reply #646 on:** April 24, 2015, 09:08 »

SS accepts 2,000,000 images a month and there is 70% acceptance for pro cameras. If anything they are accepting too many images. They could probably do fine with 25% acceptance but it's a numbers game now on the sites. I guess the idea is accept most everything and let the search sort it out. Maybe when they pass Alamy they'll slow down?

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #647 on:** April 24, 2015, 09:25 »

Quote from: tickstock on April 24, 2015, 09:08

SS accepts 2,000,000 images a month and there is 70% acceptance for pro cameras. If anything they are accepting too many images. They could probably do fine with 25% acceptance but it's a numbers game now on the sites. I guess the idea is accept most everything and let the search sort it out. Maybe when they pass Alamy they'll slow down?

I have always had the idea SS wants to outgrow Alamy. Alamy was adding 450K images a week, and thats unedited. SS is now at the same rate. Not sure if they will ever catch up with Alamy. But I agree, I think SS wants to claim the biggest library in stock. But Getty has over 110 million images.

jefftakespics2 · « **Reply #648 on:** April 24, 2015, 09:28 »

I never had a big issue with rejection ... but one batch I had was rejected for focus. I checked @ 200% -- they are tack sharp with purposeful shallow depth of field. I complained and was told to resubmit saying I made corrections. I dropped the size (just in case) and re-submitted and they were rejected for focus and lighting. I then put them through some grunge filtration as a last ditch effort, noted in the name and description and they were rejected because of noise (which is intentional). I admit defeat. My biggest complaint was the supervisor telling me to resubmit with no guarantee of acceptance. Surely they could look at them at %100 and see they were sharp. Just seems to be a big waste of time for everyone. They were accepted by all other agencies.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #649 on:** April 24, 2015, 09:35 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on April 24, 2015, 08:49

I am really getting tired of this. There's no rhyme nor reason to their rejections and acceptance. I am not going to post examples. I just wish SOMEONE FROM SHUTTERSTOCK WOULD TELL US SOMETHING. PLEASE?

Thanks.

My best guess is that inspectors are aware that there has historically been about a 40%-ish rejection rate, so they just go through everything as quickly as possible and reject 40% of everything. The easiest way to do that is to reject 40% of submitted batches in one fell swoop, rather than studying each image individually. That would account for a batch being rejected once and then accepted the second time.

If you make money based on volume/speed, there's little incentive to spend time actually looking at things. And as long as acceptance/rejection ratios remain steady, there's little incentive for SS management to look into things further—their library is still growing at the same rate.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else? (Read 193970 times)

Mantis

sunlover

Semmick Photo

No Free Lunch

Thomas from France

etudiante_rapide

enstoker

etudiante_rapide

leaf

Semmick Photo

andy_arden

Mantis

Rinderart

etudiante_rapide

Rinderart

etudiante_rapide

aly

Red Dove

cascoly

samards

Semmick Photo

tickstock

Semmick Photo

jefftakespics2

Shelma1

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors