MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else?  (Read 168041 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #800 on: June 01, 2015, 10:47 »
0
...most rejected for out of focus and poor lighting. Here is a sample of my poorly lit image.

...because you cannot see the keywords in the image.

Really confused... what's the role of keywords here?

You mean you cannot see the keywords due to poor lighting....?


« Reply #801 on: June 01, 2015, 16:47 »
+3
I dont feel like I should fight to express my views here. Its not fun.  I get nothing in return. Except for the discussion it self. Which is worthless.
Why should I qualify my competitors? and be scorned and be patronized and called "Bugman"

But what I can do is to repeat what I have said. We have a bunch of photographers here, who think, the light in the picture was important, could be bad light or good or better light. They think about image quality. They think the reviewers are bad, and their pictures should have gone through, because of the quality and the light.

I say, it is not what this game is about. Its about grabbing licence rights, distributing them and even redistribute them as middlemens middlemen. Its endless. Its exploitation. But thats another story.
And you talk about focus, where you should focus (ha ha) on keywords and never ever, take a photo because of the light, but only because of the keywords.

So  I did it again, explained, educated my competitors, how stupid is that. And Ill even get minuses for doing it. Halleluja. Foolish of me.

« Last Edit: June 01, 2015, 16:52 by JPSDK »

Rinderart

« Reply #802 on: June 02, 2015, 00:24 »
+1
Jen...I like Minus's. It shows I hit a nerve...LOL

dpimborough

« Reply #803 on: June 02, 2015, 02:42 »
+3
Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me

So goes the old saying  ~ what sensistive little flowers ;D

« Reply #804 on: June 02, 2015, 16:53 »
+4
Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me

So goes the old saying  ~ what sensistive little flowers ;D


I'd suggest that it's the minus givers rather than receivers who are the sensitive little flowers - folks who can't bear an alternative POV.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #805 on: June 02, 2015, 16:58 »
+2
Why are people disagreeing with someone's POV sensitive little flowers?

Does everyone have to agree with everyone?

Cheers
A sensitive little flower

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #806 on: June 02, 2015, 17:00 »
+10
Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me

So goes the old saying  ~ what sensistive little flowers ;D


I'd suggest that it's the minus givers rather than receivers who are the sensitive little flowers - folks who can't bear an alternative POV.

As a general point, not confined to this thread, it's perfectly possible to disagree totally with someone and accept that they have a valid alternative view.

dpimborough

« Reply #807 on: June 02, 2015, 17:10 »
0
Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me

So goes the old saying  ~ what sensistive little flowers ;D


I'd suggest that it's the minus givers rather than receivers who are the sensitive little flowers - folks who can't bear an alternative POV.

As a general point, not confined to this thread, it's perfectly possible to disagree totally with someone and accept that they have a valid alternative view.

Unless your name is Alice Eve  ;D

Semmick Photo

« Reply #808 on: June 02, 2015, 17:15 »
0
.

« Reply #809 on: June 02, 2015, 17:17 »
-1
Why are people disagreeing with someone's POV sensitive little flowers?

Does everyone have to agree with everyone?

Cheers
A sensitive little flower


They can agree or disagree.  Methinks the minus indicates more disapproval than disagreement though..

« Reply #810 on: June 02, 2015, 18:17 »
+1
Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me

So goes the old saying  ~ what sensistive little flowers ;D


I'd suggest that it's the minus givers rather than receivers who are the sensitive little flowers - folks who can't bear an alternative POV.

As a general point, not confined to this thread, it's perfectly possible to disagree totally with someone and accept that they have a valid alternative view.

But if everyone agreed with that point (fwiw I do) then surely that would break The Internet.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #811 on: June 02, 2015, 18:36 »
0
Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me

So goes the old saying  ~ what sensistive little flowers ;D


I'd suggest that it's the minus givers rather than receivers who are the sensitive little flowers - folks who can't bear an alternative POV.

As a general point, not confined to this thread, it's perfectly possible to disagree totally with someone and accept that they have a valid alternative view.

But if everyone agreed with that point (fwiw I do) then surely that would break The Internet.

LOL  8)

Shelma1

« Reply #812 on: June 05, 2015, 13:41 »
+6
I must say this is a new one. The person who inspects jpgs approved one of mine, which then appeared in my portfolio yesterday. Then the vector reviewer rejected the same jpg and it disappeared from my portfolio! For the ridiculous "title" reason, despite the fact that the vector has the same title and was approved. Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

CaptureLightUK

  • www.capturelight.co.uk

« Reply #813 on: June 07, 2015, 01:35 »
+4
Greek Mountain scene taken under blue skies at 100 ISO is rejected for excessive noise ???

And yet next image taken an hour later in similar conditions, accepted :o

It is completely random and I can learn nothing to improve my submissions from the reasons given. 

Initially I used to get upset now I just move on.  I may try slipping one or two of the random rejects in another upload in a few weeks (by accident ;) ), to see if I get a different result, if I can be bothered.

Rinderart

« Reply #814 on: June 07, 2015, 20:03 »
+8
Heres what I want....HOLDING REVIEWERS TO THE SAME STANDARDS AS THEY DO SUBMITTERS.

« Reply #815 on: June 07, 2015, 21:07 »
+3
I may try slipping one or two of the random rejects in another upload in a few weeks (by accident ;) ), to see if I get a different result, if I can be bothered.

I've done that a few times lately and, guess what? It works! Not always, but enough to help build that port on SS.

CaptureLightUK

  • www.capturelight.co.uk

« Reply #816 on: June 08, 2015, 02:53 »
+3
Heres what I want....HOLDING REVIEWERS TO THE SAME STANDARDS AS THEY DO SUBMITTERS.

It's a pity there isn't an industry Association of reviewers or some kind of minimum competency standard  :D

What's the most confusing to someone starting out is the inconsistencies between agencies.  I'm lucky enough, in these very early days, to have a fairly good acceptance ratio at 8 of the 9 I've submitted to (I'm still waiting for CS to accept anything after 21 days in the pending queue  ???).  In these early days I am submitting the same images to all agencies.  It's amazing how SS will reject an image for any number of random reasons for others to accept it with no problem.  However it's also quite bizarre how an image accepted by SS and 6 other will be rejected by FT for poor lighting or BS for focus issues when there clearly isn't a problem.

At least fotolia were honest with one declined image when they just simple said they had too many of that subject.

I don't mind rejection (I don't like it but I realise it's part of the business) I just wish that I could learn something from the rejection reasons so that I can improve!
« Last Edit: June 08, 2015, 02:56 by CaptureLightUK »


MRommens

« Reply #817 on: June 16, 2015, 13:04 »
0
A few weeks ago my Shutterstock application is accepted. But after that, all my submissions are rejected and my images are on other stocksites

For example:
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-electricity-pole-against-blue-sky-image40809877

This image were rejected for the following reasons:
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.
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized.

When i view the image on full resolution, the subject is sharp
And i don't see exposure issues (over or under exposuere), what they mean in this image?
The image is taken om ISO 80 and i don't see any noise at full reslution.

Can someone give feedback about this image?
And how can i produce images that accepted on Shutterstock?
This image is on Dreamstime and Fotolia
« Last Edit: June 16, 2015, 13:07 by MRommens »

Rinderart

« Reply #818 on: June 16, 2015, 13:33 »
+2

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #819 on: June 16, 2015, 16:05 »
+3
I love how they reject my seamless patterns as not seamless when they are absolutely seamless! They are also now rejecting my submissions of Latino women because of the non-English word "Latina!" Moreover, they reject most of them for not having a correct reference file when I attach the reference file! So I resubmit and then it's rejected for "poor execution"! :o

Time to resubmit again!  8)
« Last Edit: June 16, 2015, 16:09 by Striving »

« Reply #820 on: June 16, 2015, 16:16 »
+2
I love how they reject my seamless patterns as not seamless when they are absolutely seamless! They are also now rejecting my submissions of Latino women because of the non-English word "Latina!" Moreover, they reject most of them for not having a correct reference file when I attach the reference file! So I resubmit and then it's rejected for "poor execution"! :o

Time to resubmit again!  8)

Sometimes you just can't win for losing!

Shelma1

« Reply #821 on: June 17, 2015, 06:07 »
+4
I'm going back and forth with them now on "poor rasterization." I asked them to show me where things are poorly rasterized. It's becoming clear that the inspector opens the file at 100% (or more likely 200%), sees whatever's in the middle of the illustration, doesn't understand what it is because he/she never looks at the whole image, sees overlapping vector shapes and misinterprets where the shapes meet as "noise" or something. But most of all I think the new auditing system is pressuring them to make rejections, so they just press the most likely reason they can think of. Once in a great while the reason is valid (for example, I forgot to click the "illustration" button), but the great majority of the time the rejection is bogus.

Hopefully with Adobe Stock SS will take a step back and rethink this process.

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #822 on: June 17, 2015, 06:28 »
+4
Yeah, I think they are taking ANYONE for reviewers. Inconsistent and crappy. Then they keep changing options for Reviewer Notes. Annoying!  >:(

I'm going back and forth with them now on "poor rasterization." I asked them to show me where things are poorly rasterized. It's becoming clear that the inspector opens the file at 100% (or more likely 200%), sees whatever's in the middle of the illustration, doesn't understand what it is because he/she never looks at the whole image, sees overlapping vector shapes and misinterprets where the shapes meet as "noise" or something. But most of all I think the new auditing system is pressuring them to make rejections, so they just press the most likely reason they can think of. Once in a great while the reason is valid (for example, I forgot to click the "illustration" button), but the great majority of the time the rejection is bogus.

Hopefully with Adobe Stock SS will take a step back and rethink this process.

« Reply #823 on: June 17, 2015, 12:37 »
+1
Maybe SS doesn't have a dropdown reason for "We have this subject Covered" and used generic Ones instead which is silly But... Image is a bit Flat . Needs some Punch.  244 Pages of electric Poles . just saying....You asked. RF sites really Like Punchy Images. especially SS my friend.



http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=143447923736218730000&search_tracking_id=wgiR7LXN6kAdmoYLHV_eBg&searchterm=Electricity+pole&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=


This is a really important point. One of the keys to making this Biz work is coming up with valuable, unique content or original takes on a tired theme. I always get a little wiggle room if I have something relatively unique to submit, equally I get my head handed to me if I submit an already covered subject, even if I have technically good images.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #824 on: June 17, 2015, 12:56 »
+7
They had an LCV rejection reason and did away with it. They can implement a photo is too similar  reason in 3 minutes. Instead -  Why do they choose to throw every bogus reason in the book at contributors? It... Just.... Doesnt..... Make....... Sense!


 

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