pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else?  (Read 167974 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #750 on: May 23, 2015, 05:31 »
+2
Hehe, I'm not pissed, I was just giving example and this guy first came on my mind.


50%

« Reply #751 on: May 23, 2015, 06:02 »
+2
I noticed that too. Same object and then shot at 30mm, 35mm, 40mm, 45mm, then turned to 30 degrees left, 35 degrees left and so on, and then turned to all possible angles to the right and shot 20 times..... it's crazy, I think they should reject such stuff, no wonder, some people have 20k+ images.

For example: http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

This is just ridiculous, what they're accepting.

Hahaha this guy surely smoked too much lol!  ;D

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #752 on: May 23, 2015, 08:36 »
+1
Is there really a huge market which will actually pay for these pics?
« Last Edit: May 24, 2015, 07:17 by ShadySue »

« Reply #753 on: May 23, 2015, 09:40 »
0
lol lol lol, he is smoking a lot of weed, ha ha, what people upload  lol lol
35000 lol

probably some sort of disease or too much weed   :D 8) ::)


I noticed that too. Same object and then shot at 30mm, 35mm, 40mm, 45mm, then turned to 30 degrees left, 35 degrees left and so on, and then turned to all possible angles to the right and shot 20 times..... it's crazy, I think they should reject such stuff, no wonder, some people have 20k+ images.

For example: http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

This is just ridiculous, what they're accepting.

« Reply #754 on: May 23, 2015, 13:24 »
+3
Is there really a huge market which will actually pay for these pics?

I doubt it. Those are just thousands of useless variations of the same thing. One marijuana bud.

« Reply #755 on: May 23, 2015, 13:56 »
+1
Is there really a huge market which will actually pay for these pics?

I doubt it. Those are just thousands of useless variations of the same thing. One marijuana bud.
microstock is millions of variations of the same thing - far fewer images of weed than of tomatoes so probably fill a gap of sorts.  Mind you, in principle, I think dozens of variations of the same image or the same image dozens of times with some different naff text shouldn't be allowed but I'm probably in a minority given how popular DT's similars policy is.

« Reply #756 on: May 23, 2015, 14:28 »
0
 :o :o :o :o I am speechless...........


lol lol lol, he is smoking a lot of weed, ha ha, what people upload  lol lol
35000 lol

probably some sort of disease or too much weed   :D 8) ::)


I noticed that too. Same object and then shot at 30mm, 35mm, 40mm, 45mm, then turned to 30 degrees left, 35 degrees left and so on, and then turned to all possible angles to the right and shot 20 times..... it's crazy, I think they should reject such stuff, no wonder, some people have 20k+ images.

For example: http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

This is just ridiculous, what they're accepting.


« Reply #757 on: May 23, 2015, 15:14 »
+2
:o :o :o :o I am speechless...........


lol lol lol, he is smoking a lot of weed, ha ha, what people upload  lol lol
35000 lol

probably some sort of disease or too much weed   :D 8) ::)


I noticed that too. Same object and then shot at 30mm, 35mm, 40mm, 45mm, then turned to 30 degrees left, 35 degrees left and so on, and then turned to all possible angles to the right and shot 20 times..... it's crazy, I think they should reject such stuff, no wonder, some people have 20k+ images.

For example: http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

This is just ridiculous, what they're accepting.




That is what makes me frustrated about the whole rejection thing. He must be affiliated with SS in some way, but he's sure as sh!t not an inspector..........or maybe he is.......that could explain a LOT! ;)

dpimborough

« Reply #758 on: May 23, 2015, 15:19 »
0
It's probably because he has 30,000 plus images they will see him as a major contributor and cut some slack

« Reply #759 on: May 23, 2015, 17:19 »
+15
It's probably because he has 30,000 plus images they will see him as a major contributor and cut some slack

Well, from the 12 pages of images of "Candy" (of all sorts) that I looked at on his portfolio, before I got bored and stopped clicking forward, I'm guessing that his entire 30,000+ collection probably consists of (maybe) 40-50 different subjects.

That SS is allowing those shots into its collection right now, when they're excluding so much other work, truly is depressing.

OM

« Reply #760 on: May 23, 2015, 17:41 »
+3
It's probably because he has 30,000 plus images they will see him as a major contributor and cut some slack

Well, from the 12 pages of images of "Candy" (of all sorts) that I looked at on his portfolio, before I got bored and stopped clicking forward, I'm guessing that his entire 30,000+ collection probably consists of (maybe) 40-50 different subjects.

That SS is allowing those shots into its collection right now, when they're excluding so much other work, truly is depressing.

Looked at the first couple of pages...you know what's there! Skipped to page 300...deja vu all over again...skipped to last page, 357, he started as he meant to go on. Simply mind boggling that SS accepts it all. Makes me want to reconsider adding to my own port.

Rinderart

« Reply #761 on: May 24, 2015, 00:40 »
+2
Simply Mind Blowing. How is this possible.

« Reply #762 on: May 24, 2015, 02:31 »
+32
What Shutterstock has done here by allowing this nonsense portfolio is a complete insult to hard working stock photographers who submit high quality work in the hope of earning a decent living.  A complete insult.  Absolutely unacceptable.

« Reply #763 on: May 24, 2015, 03:30 »
+2
It's probably because he has 30,000 plus images they will see him as a major contributor and cut some slack

Well, from the 12 pages of images of "Candy" (of all sorts) that I looked at on his portfolio, before I got bored and stopped clicking forward, I'm guessing that his entire 30,000+ collection probably consists of (maybe) 40-50 different subjects.

That SS is allowing those shots into its collection right now, when they're excluding so much other work, truly is depressing.
And actually this gives right to exist many conspiracy theories. Kind of a proof.

« Reply #764 on: May 24, 2015, 04:24 »
+3
I have seen quite a few portfolios like these, people with 20k, 50k, 90k similar images of the same subject over and over again. There is one guy who does this in my niche, he buries my new files with ugly similars, but in the end I have seen maybe one of his images on the top page. Most of these will never sell, some do but not very often. It definitely affects visibility of new files though, as they are already born around page 3.

« Reply #765 on: May 25, 2015, 00:14 »
+5
Simply Mind Blowing. How is this possible.

No departure from white poodles riddled with flea dirt, the anomaly has been in place for years.

Accept virtually anything from some ports and reject high end technically superior images from others.


Semmick Photo

« Reply #766 on: May 25, 2015, 01:22 »
+2
How does that benefit SS?


« Reply #767 on: May 25, 2015, 02:50 »
0
:o :o :o :o I am speechless...........


lol lol lol, he is smoking a lot of weed, ha ha, what people upload  lol lol
35000 lol

probably some sort of disease or too much weed   :D 8) ::)


I noticed that too. Same object and then shot at 30mm, 35mm, 40mm, 45mm, then turned to 30 degrees left, 35 degrees left and so on, and then turned to all possible angles to the right and shot 20 times..... it's crazy, I think they should reject such stuff, no wonder, some people have 20k+ images.

For example: http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

This is just ridiculous, what they're accepting.




That is what makes me frustrated about the whole rejection thing. He must be affiliated with SS in some way, but he's sure as sh!t not an inspector..........or maybe he is.......that could explain a LOT! ;)


Or maybe the reviewer was off his head on weed.

« Reply #768 on: May 25, 2015, 07:03 »
+2
How does that benefit SS?
Not ss, but people which work there. Too high probability that it is a usage of position in own interest

« Reply #769 on: May 25, 2015, 08:01 »
+2
How does that benefit SS?
Not ss, but people which work there. Too high probability that it is a usage of position in own interest

This is what I was saying in an earlier post.  There has to be more to this than just a "regular uploader".

Semmick Photo

« Reply #770 on: May 25, 2015, 09:18 »
+1
I don't buy it that SS is so gullible not to notice a rogue reviewer. It would also mean a portfolio has a dedicated reviewer which I doubt as well.

« Reply #771 on: May 25, 2015, 13:11 »
+10
I don't buy it that SS is so gullible not to notice a rogue reviewer. It would also mean a portfolio has a dedicated reviewer which I doubt as well.

Really your guess is as good as mine. But for the sake of argument there are more than a few ports filled with replicated crap. I know of one huge port filled with nothing but a mostly identical shot of plain yogurt.

As an example there was one well know pimper that used to baffle minds in regard to reviews.  Not only did shutterstock accept everything the pimper submitted, we had to see it in every thread, day after day, year after year.  Mean while much better images were being rejected on a daily basis.

There is just no way shutterstock could have NOT noticed this. As for the explanation of why shutterstock never did anything about it. It baffles the mind. 
« Last Edit: May 25, 2015, 13:15 by gbalex »

Semmick Photo

« Reply #772 on: May 25, 2015, 13:26 »
+1
You have a point. I agree with that. It is weird.

PZF

« Reply #773 on: May 26, 2015, 04:43 »
+3
I am SO fed up! Another 100% rejection. Most nature, some macro shots - perfectly fine, all accepted elsewhere. All outdoors.

Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues, unfavorable lighting conditions, and/or incorrect white balance.

TRULY well p'd off.  And sales plummetting.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #774 on: May 26, 2015, 06:30 »
+10
That weed portfolio :o I decided to skip to page 100 to see what his other subjects were about, until I found there are basically no other subjects. It's page after page of identical crap.


 

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
34205 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