MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else?  (Read 168384 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #775 on: May 26, 2015, 07:31 »
+8
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.

You're not alone. I just shot some beach images in a remote area using a tripod, remote release, F8, no wind, Nikon 17-35 2.8 (about the sharpest wide zoom Nikon makes) and most rejected for out of focus and poor lighting. Here is a sample of my poorly lit image.


« Reply #776 on: May 26, 2015, 08:50 »
+1
Here is a sample of my poorly lit image.

Ya, we can all see how poorly lit that image is!   :o

ultimagina

« Reply #777 on: May 26, 2015, 09:02 »
+1
Your horizon doesn't look horizontal too me.
And it looks like it is taken at high noon. This is why it is considered not much as "poorly lit", but rather taken during "unfavorable lighting conditions"

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.

You're not alone. I just shot some beach images in a remote area using a tripod, remote release, F8, no wind, Nikon 17-35 2.8 (about the sharpest wide zoom Nikon makes) and most rejected for out of focus and poor lighting. Here is a sample of my poorly lit image.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2015, 09:10 by ultimagaina »

« Reply #778 on: May 26, 2015, 10:38 »
+1
Your horizon doesn't look horizontal too me.

I noticed the tilted horizon too, but since that wasn't a reason for the rejection

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #779 on: May 26, 2015, 10:58 »
+5
Your horizon doesn't look horizontal too me.

I noticed the tilted horizon too, but since that wasn't a reason for the rejection

Looking closely at the image, it looks to me as if there is a coastline on the horizon and the water is following the coast, rather than being slanted.

« Reply #780 on: May 26, 2015, 11:31 »
+4
Your horizon doesn't look horizontal too me.

I noticed the tilted horizon too, but since that wasn't a reason for the rejection

Looking closely at the image, it looks to me as if there is a coastline on the horizon and the water is following the coast, rather than being slanted.

Thats accurate. The tripod is set with a leveling bubble. But the illusion of the rising coastline gives it that look.  Perhaps the fairly high sun was an issue, who knows, but it was definately at my back. Oh well, some got in some didnt.

« Reply #781 on: May 26, 2015, 12:25 »
+15
In general, you can no longer rely on reviewer rejection comments to actually mean much. In fact they are toxic to the point of actually misleading some newer photographers who might take them to heart and be set upon the wrong path. I'm not sure whether the reviewers are really as incompetent as they sometimes seem or whether they are under orders to reject a named percentage. They are forced to choose from a limited list box.

Myself, I think SS is sowing the seeds of their own destruction, something the whole of microstock is experiencing. It was a fun ride while it lasted!

« Reply #782 on: May 27, 2015, 08:24 »
-6
The reviewers are not incompetent at all.
But they do see things from the side of the agency.
Which they are hired for.

And Mantis, since you are brave enough to upload a picture and throw it into the pirrhanya infested waters.
Look at the rejection reasons again, and aks yourself, what it is, the reviewer (who expresses the viewpoints of the agency) politely is is trying to tell you.

Tror

« Reply #783 on: May 27, 2015, 08:50 »
+7
The reviewers are not incompetent at all.
But they do see things from the side of the agency.
Which they are hired for.


I disagree. We are used to pick up and try out new trends in styling, lightning, subject, concept etc. all the time. In fact, a half time Job was created just for research and analytics of the market. Every now and then a new look/concept hits the nail and the images start selling like crazy. Subsequently we produce more in that style over a period of about one month first. SS usually rejects everything which is out of the ordinary -  even after 6 month a new style was established and has proven on most stock sites to sell really well. They have absolutely no idea what sells or not, how to define trends, quality or even what stock photography is about in general. They just follow a certain scheme, get paid, get another coffee, do not care about anything. That is my harsh impression.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2015, 08:52 by Tror »

« Reply #784 on: May 27, 2015, 09:01 »
+7
The reviewers are not incompetent at all.
But they do see things from the side of the agency.
Which they are hired for.

And Mantis, since you are brave enough to upload a picture and throw it into the pirrhanya infested waters.
Look at the rejection reasons again, and aks yourself, what it is, the reviewer (who expresses the viewpoints of the agency) politely is is trying to tell you.

I think a major point of this thread is that reviewers should not be 'trying to tell you' anything, politely or not, but telling you exactly why a image is rejected. Other agencies have a rejection category along the lines of "This is not what we are looking for" and this I find perfectly acceptable when I get them. Furthermore if SS does come clean that it does not want certain subjects as it is saturated already, then that is fine. It saves everyone time (but, as many have pointed out, it potentially saves reviewers revenue).

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #785 on: May 27, 2015, 09:02 »
+6
Look at the rejection reasons again, and aks yourself, what it is, the reviewer (who expresses the viewpoints of the agency) politely is is trying to tell you.
It would be very interesting to know the 'viewpoints of the agency' which has accepted all these hundreds, probably thousands, of extremely similar cannabis images.

In addition, the many people who have reported reuploading rejected images without change and getting them accepted.

Rinderart

« Reply #786 on: May 27, 2015, 15:09 »
-1
Look at the rejection reasons again, and aks yourself, what it is, the reviewer (who expresses the viewpoints of the agency) politely is is trying to tell you.
It would be very interesting to know the 'viewpoints of the agency' which has accepted all these hundreds, probably thousands, of extremely similar cannabis images.

In addition, the many people who have reported reuploading rejected images without change and getting them accepted.

I would pay a lot for that info.

« Reply #787 on: May 27, 2015, 17:10 »
0
Today, I was really beat up. A batch of (5) images--- 1 accepted.  Same lighting, focus 100%, Same subject, various, composition placement (The other (5) were rejected.

« Reply #788 on: May 27, 2015, 17:40 »
+6
Your horizon doesn't look horizontal too me.
And it looks like it is taken at high noon. This is why it is considered not much as "poorly lit", but rather taken during "unfavorable lighting conditions"

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.

You're not alone. I just shot some beach images in a remote area using a tripod, remote release, F8, no wind, Nikon 17-35 2.8 (about the sharpest wide zoom Nikon makes) and most rejected for out of focus and poor lighting. Here is a sample of my poorly lit image.

Is there a rule somewhere that says that you are not allowed to photograph mid-day?

I don't see anything wrong with the lighting on that image. Bright, colorful, no harsh shadows. Should be just what SS wants.


Maybe if 1000 more images of virtually the same thing (tripod moved 6 inches to the right, tilt up 1 degree, pan left 1 degree, piece of pot on the road) the reviewers would have approved it.

« Reply #789 on: May 27, 2015, 18:32 »
-1
regarding OPs initial claim -- google's penguin was first issued more than 3 years ago, last major update was fall of 2014
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 15:39 by cascoly »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #790 on: May 27, 2015, 19:36 »
0
regarding OPs initial claim -- google's penguin was first issued more than 3 years ago, last major update was fall of 2014

Crossed threads?

« Reply #791 on: May 28, 2015, 01:33 »
+4
If you look hard enough I guess you can find a reason to reject anything as the comments on the image posted shows. I think maybe for some categories the instruction to reviewers  is to look for any reason to reject rather than saying "we have too many of this subject  - unless your image is stunning it will be rejected"


Me


« Reply #792 on: May 28, 2015, 02:59 »
+7
Your horizon doesn't look horizontal too me.
And it looks like it is taken at high noon. This is why it is considered not much as "poorly lit", but rather taken during "unfavorable lighting conditions"

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.

You're not alone. I just shot some beach images in a remote area using a tripod, remote release, F8, no wind, Nikon 17-35 2.8 (about the sharpest wide zoom Nikon makes) and most rejected for out of focus and poor lighting. Here is a sample of my poorly lit image.

Is there a rule somewhere that says that you are not allowed to photograph mid-day?

I don't see anything wrong with the lighting on that image. Bright, colorful, no harsh shadows. Should be just what SS wants.


Maybe if 1000 more images of virtually the same thing (tripod moved 6 inches to the right, tilt up 1 degree, pan left 1 degree, piece of pot on the road) the reviewers would have approved it.

Totally agree. All landscape advice is to shoot during golden hours, beautiful light, etc, etc but when you look at travel brochures, city guides, etc they are 90% full of blue sky shots. If you want to shoot landscapes that look great then shoot during golden hours in beautiful light, if you want to shoot landscape images that sell do it on a blue sky idyllic day.

I have changed my shooting habits to match what sells, especially in RM and the difference in sales has been noticeable. Blue sky sunny day pics sell to businesses. Golden hour shots look great as prints and sold as prints.

« Reply #793 on: May 28, 2015, 03:40 »
+2
Also before they hated everything I do  S stock used to HATE shadows I always had more noon pics accepted than "golden hour" pics

« Reply #794 on: May 28, 2015, 15:17 »
-4
Jeez. You guys really only want to sit and whine.
Can you not see it?

It is not about you and your pictures, they mean nothing. Art is not important. Light isnt either.
Nothing is. Photography is only a mean to put amounts of sellable data online.

Only marketability is important. Keywords and substance in form of pictures. The better connected they are, the more sales.

And yes, you can make me go away by giving me minusses and you can continue uploading meaningless coastlines and whine instead of finding out.
That coastline Mantis did, has NO KEYWORDS!

« Reply #795 on: May 28, 2015, 15:55 »
+5
Jeez. You guys really only want to sit and whine.
Can you not see it?

It is not about you and your pictures, they mean nothing. Art is not important. Light isnt either.
Nothing is. Photography is only a mean to put amounts of sellable data online.

Only marketability is important. Keywords and substance in form of pictures. The better connected they are, the more sales.

And yes, you can make me go away by giving me minusses and you can continue uploading meaningless coastlines and whine instead of finding out.
That coastline Mantis did, has NO KEYWORDS!

Really, bug man? Who says i posted a reduced image of my keyworded image? And are you so clairvoyant that you know landscapes don't sell? I will give you a tip, like you probably do with your bugs. If you keyword them right, particularly where it was shot, your selling odds go way up. I do quite well with my landscapes, but as usual you bring nothing to the table of any value in these forums and again proved it here.

« Reply #796 on: May 28, 2015, 16:01 »
+1
poor light in underwater, reviewer looks  more deeply.



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.

You're not alone. I just shot some beach images in a remote area using a tripod, remote release, F8, no wind, Nikon 17-35 2.8 (about the sharpest wide zoom Nikon makes) and most rejected for out of focus and poor lighting. Here is a sample of my poorly lit image.

« Reply #797 on: May 28, 2015, 16:06 »
-1
Mantis for god heavens sake, I do not critisize your pictures.
Its not your images Im after, it  was just there because you were brave enough to upload it.
and it proved to be a good example.

because you cannot see the keywords in the image.
Contrary to an image of a bicycle.
My message was pointing at something completely different.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2015, 16:10 by JPSDK »

« Reply #798 on: May 28, 2015, 17:44 »
+1
Mantis for god heavens sake, I do not critisize your pictures.
Its not your images Im after, it  was just there because you were brave enough to upload it.
and it proved to be a good example.

because you cannot see the keywords in the image.
Contrary to an image of a bicycle.
My message was pointing at something completely different.

I can see keywords in the image such as adventure, travel, tourism, unspoiled nature, quiet getaway, secluded beach, clean environment, to name just a few, I bet others can name more.

« Reply #799 on: June 01, 2015, 10:42 »
0
poor light in underwater, reviewer looks  more deeply.
;D ;D ;D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
17681 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 16:03
by stuttershock
22 Replies
6969 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 18:37
by shudderstok
85 Replies
43908 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 16:02
by stuttershock
10 Replies
6737 Views
Last post June 22, 2015, 14:07
by Freedom
212 Replies
34270 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