MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else?  (Read 168106 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #825 on: June 17, 2015, 22:37 »
+1
I got a bunch of rejections on shallow DOF images again - though the reviewer who got the first 3 or 4  accepted them - a series ended up in two batches because of some supposedly misspelled words - the second batch got rejected and I think you're right that they look at it at 100 or 200% without looking at the whole image and if they focus on the part that should be OOF they reject. They all got accepted elsewhere including Alamy with their strict rules.

I also had an image rejected as being the same as one I had online, which was a first for me. I had done a concept image for the new year using roadsigns and when it kept selling well into the spring, I uploaded one with mostly blank signs figuring it would save designers the trouble of removing my words, and also make it easy for small businesses who might be designing their own stuff to just pop in their own text, but it was rejected. I send a message and was told that it was the same file despite explaining the difference (I had already given it a different file number since it was a different image IMHO) so I gave up and the new years version sold that day and a few more times this week so perhaps they are right and that image is going to place better in searches than the new one anyway.

Interestingly, I have mistakenly uploaded duplicates and they never rejected them, so I've just deleted them when I realized my mistake.


« Reply #826 on: June 18, 2015, 00:39 »
+6
Alamy has a strict rules? For me, they are the only agency, beside iStock, that didn't reject any of my files.

« Reply #827 on: June 18, 2015, 00:46 »
+1
Alamy adopts a different philosophy it expects contributors to do their own QC - if one photo does not meet their technical requirements it rejects the whole batch (and puts you on the naughty step for about a month). They do not assess aesthetic or commercial value.

« Reply #828 on: June 18, 2015, 20:33 »
0
Ok, review results of my last editorial batch received. I had 4 images taken from a DSLR which were rejected for out of focus and only image taken from my mobile phone was accepted. Feeling crazy! :[email protected]

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #829 on: June 19, 2015, 08:02 »
+5
I'm now at 100% rejection for "Poor Execution" of my illustrations now (my average is 60 submissions weekly). Unprecedented! I've got a 4,000+ portfolio selling 200+ monthly of other "Poor Execution" images? They've got to have a reviewer that hates my work. I've gone this far with great success of acceptances and sales on SS only to be stopped by one reviewer? This is such BS!!!  >:(
« Last Edit: June 19, 2015, 08:08 by Striving »

PZF

« Reply #830 on: June 19, 2015, 09:05 »
+3
And just to add to the jollity of it all, I'm getting Illustratve Editorial images rejected for
Altered Editorial -- Major alterations to editorial content such as adding or removing objects from a scene are prohibited. Alterations that go beyond traditional photographic techniques (dodging/burning, cropping, color adjustments, etc.) are unacceptable.
when I have done NOTHING.
Nothing added, nothing taken away.
But how can I prove this?
Sigh........

« Reply #831 on: June 19, 2015, 09:09 »
+1
And just to add to the jollity of it all, I'm getting Illustratve Editorial images rejected for
Altered Editorial -- Major alterations to editorial content such as adding or removing objects from a scene are prohibited. Alterations that go beyond traditional photographic techniques (dodging/burning, cropping, color adjustments, etc.) are unacceptable.
when I have done NOTHING.
Nothing added, nothing taken away.
But how can I prove this?
Sigh........

Complain, have a laugh, and resubmit  ;)

PZF

« Reply #832 on: June 19, 2015, 09:32 »
0
lol! Probably will too (even though I can't add an editorial note now)!

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #833 on: June 19, 2015, 13:53 »
0
SS must have hired a batch of reviewers that just want to be paid for all their rejections (easier to do than to accept).

And just to add to the jollity of it all, I'm getting Illustratve Editorial images rejected for
Altered Editorial -- Major alterations to editorial content such as adding or removing objects from a scene are prohibited. Alterations that go beyond traditional photographic techniques (dodging/burning, cropping, color adjustments, etc.) are unacceptable.
when I have done NOTHING.
Nothing added, nothing taken away.
But how can I prove this?
Sigh........

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #834 on: June 19, 2015, 13:55 »
0
For the first time in my 5 years as a microstock artist, my acceptance rate is higher on iStock than it is on Shutterstock!  :o

Semmick Photo

« Reply #835 on: June 19, 2015, 13:57 »
+1
And just to add to the jollity of it all, I'm getting Illustratve Editorial images rejected for
Altered Editorial -- Major alterations to editorial content such as adding or removing objects from a scene are prohibited. Alterations that go beyond traditional photographic techniques (dodging/burning, cropping, color adjustments, etc.) are unacceptable.
when I have done NOTHING.
Nothing added, nothing taken away.
But how can I prove this?
Sigh........
I had the same. Editorial image with shallow depth of field. I emailed them. They thought I had created the blur in photoshop. Upon explanation that I hadnt I was allowed to resubmit.

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #836 on: June 23, 2015, 06:40 »
+2
After doing a resubmission test of some "Poor Execution" rejections compared to acceptedand sellingoutline and separate component illustrations from the same original, I am convinced there is a vector reviewer working there who is just trying to make money by rejecting large amounts of work. It is much easier to reject work basing a judgement of a specific contributor than it is to open it, really look at it and check for problems (I have applied for reviewer positions at SS just to get an idea of what they must do and their job is to weed out images with technical problems more than subjective "execution" issues). So I have sent complaints to support with various batch and image numbers.  :o
« Last Edit: June 23, 2015, 06:42 by Striving »

« Reply #837 on: June 23, 2015, 10:24 »
0
SS must have hired a batch of reviewers that just want to be paid for all their rejections (easier to do than to accept).

And just to add to the jollity of it all, I'm getting Illustratve Editorial images rejected for
Altered Editorial -- Major alterations to editorial content such as adding or removing objects from a scene are prohibited. Alterations that go beyond traditional photographic techniques (dodging/burning, cropping, color adjustments, etc.) are unacceptable.
when I have done NOTHING.
Nothing added, nothing taken away.
But how can I prove this?
Sigh........

Some sites pay more for rejections, the reasoning being it takes longer to inspect an image thoroughly to determine that it needs to be rejected.

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #838 on: June 23, 2015, 13:24 »
0
I see. I never got hired as a reviewer, so I don't know the pay structure. However, if that is the case for SS, then it makes perfect sense. I figure if support doesn't step in to help, then the reviewer will get mad enough to complain that I've been resubmitting the same drawings. Then I'm hoping they'll see that my stuffdespite its unconventional grotesque stylesells well, and tell the reviewer to cool it with his/her 100% rejections of my work.

SS must have hired a batch of reviewers that just want to be paid for all their rejections (easier to do than to accept).

And just to add to the jollity of it all, I'm getting Illustratve Editorial images rejected for
Altered Editorial -- Major alterations to editorial content such as adding or removing objects from a scene are prohibited. Alterations that go beyond traditional photographic techniques (dodging/burning, cropping, color adjustments, etc.) are unacceptable.
when I have done NOTHING.
Nothing added, nothing taken away.
But how can I prove this?
Sigh........

Some sites pay more for rejections, the reasoning being it takes longer to inspect an image thoroughly to determine that it needs to be rejected.

PZF

« Reply #839 on: June 24, 2015, 01:57 »
+1
I appealed and resubmitted with case number etc and they have now been accepted.
:)

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #840 on: June 26, 2015, 19:29 »
0
I appealed and resubmitted with case number etc and they have now been accepted.
:)

Yeah, I got some case numbers too now. I'll let you all know what happens...

« Reply #841 on: June 28, 2015, 16:25 »
+4
Horrendous, and obviously under-experienced reviewing by SS lately. Batch completely rejected at SS, a batch with 100% approval at FT & P5, both notorious for excessive nonsense rejections.

SS clearly doesn't mind having useless reviewers that waste their time and money, as well as ours. Now I'll be messaging support and resubmitting, again. Done this so many times now, almost always getting the rejection reversed and many of those turning out to be top sellers and dominating the popular search results in their respective categories.

Unbelievable.


« Reply #842 on: June 28, 2015, 17:22 »
0
Alamy has a strict rules? For me, they are the only agency, beside iStock, that didn't reject any of my files.


You said it man - those sites are about as picky as flickr  ;D

Shelma1

« Reply #843 on: June 29, 2015, 13:50 »
0

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #844 on: July 02, 2015, 04:42 »
+1
Absolutely ridiculous rejections. A whole days work editing for all to be rejected. The stock reason seems to be "Poor lighting conditions" but last time with the same image it was something different.

SS and Photodune are both as bad as each other. The worst thing is I deleted a good image (that made an A list movie poster) re-edited it to make it better (I didn't have lightroom in those early days) and they keep rejecting it on the basis of out of focus, despite the fact it was taken on a tripod. UNBELIEVABLE !
« Last Edit: July 02, 2015, 04:55 by Herg »

MxR

« Reply #845 on: July 02, 2015, 05:41 »
+1
Focus obssesion in Shutter. Is stupid...

« Reply #846 on: July 02, 2015, 09:30 »
0
Has anybody got any case numbers from SS recently? How long does it usually take?  I emailed them a week ago and still no reply.




« Reply #847 on: July 02, 2015, 15:41 »
+3
This whole reviewer thing is funny.  They reject my images quite a bit for focus which is silly for bird photography.  With an f4 lens, you will never have the subject completely in focus.  The important focus point is the facial disk/ beak and eye.  I just wait then resubmit until I find someone who actually gets it. 

« Reply #848 on: July 03, 2015, 23:33 »
0
Has anybody got any case numbers from SS recently? How long does it usually take?  I emailed them a week ago and still no reply.

It took five days week ago.
First, 80% were rejected, new submit with a case number and 7% rejected.

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #849 on: July 04, 2015, 12:58 »
0
Has anybody got any case numbers from SS recently? How long does it usually take?  I emailed them a week ago and still no reply.

2 days for me


 

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
43883 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
34214 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