pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else?  (Read 167630 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #900 on: September 23, 2015, 10:42 »
0
So...does anybody knows, is photo of music notes allowed to upload? I uploaded a close-up of a few notes and got rejected with Trademark--Image / Metadata potentially infringes on intellectual property rights.

Then I checked on SS site for "music notes" and there are plenty of photos of music notes.

Probably they fear it is the MUSIC which is copyright. I drew some notes in PS and they were accepted (I also clarified the fact that the 'music' was created by me).
Or maybe there was something else in the photo....

Nope, just notes, but they are from some book with guitar notes for some songs. Anyway, I guess I'll just re-arrange the notes and put a message that music is "fictional".

Tnks


« Reply #901 on: September 24, 2015, 14:00 »
0
So, how do you leave a note to reviewer if none of the 3 options doesn't apply to your photo?
« Last Edit: September 24, 2015, 14:07 by Dumc »

« Reply #902 on: September 25, 2015, 02:31 »
0
So, I just left a note in Title/Description that music notes have been changed and they still rejected images. Probably they didn't even read that. Any ideas what else could I do?

« Reply #903 on: September 26, 2015, 05:23 »
+1
Personally I try and forget it and move on - I may lose money but I keep my sanity ;)

wds

« Reply #904 on: September 26, 2015, 08:52 »
0
So, I just left a note in Title/Description that music notes have been changed and they still rejected images. Probably they didn't even read that. Any ideas what else could I do?

Create a property release with the relevant info.

« Reply #905 on: September 26, 2015, 12:52 »
+1
I can't, it's more then 20 years old book with guitar notes and tabs from some USA band. Beside that, only few notes are visible in photo. Even if you played them, you wouldn't recognize the songs. And I completely re-arranged notes and tabs in Photoshop anyway.  I'm just gonna skip uploading this to Shutterstock.

« Reply #906 on: September 26, 2015, 18:22 »
0
I can't, it's more then 20 years old book with guitar notes and tabs from some USA band. Beside that, only few notes are visible in photo. Even if you played them, you wouldn't recognize the songs. And I completely re-arranged notes and tabs in Photoshop anyway.  I'm just gonna skip uploading this to Shutterstock.

A few years ago I had an image of a check that showed the account number, but I changed it with bogus numbers in Photoshop. When I submitted it with an explanation (when SS used to allow that) it still got rejected for the account number. I resubmitted with another note, but once again it was rejected for account number. Once I escalated it, I got a case number and resubmitted it, finally accepted.  The point I wanted to make is notes (no pun intended) haven't always worked for me either. 

PZF

« Reply #907 on: September 27, 2015, 10:50 »
+1
I put any info like that as part of the description now. Bit odd but we have no other simple way....

music invented by me.....

Even down to ' .... in golden yellow evening light....' in the hopes it gets rid of (some of the) wrong WB rejections!

« Reply #908 on: September 27, 2015, 13:11 »
+1
Yeah, got one of those too. Photo shot in early winter morning, when the sun gives this orange/golden light to the subject, and of course it got rejected for WB. It's just ridicilous.

« Reply #909 on: September 28, 2015, 17:08 »
0
And how about:

"Effects--Image has quality issues from digital in-camera effects and/or techniques done in post production"

Recently I started getting some of my images rejected that reason. Since I always post process my images the same way, with basically the same workflow, and this kind of rejections never happened before, was there any change of evaluation criteria that I'm not aware of?

« Reply #910 on: September 28, 2015, 21:18 »
+1
It is weird to intentionally add noise to an image (processed with the noise reduction slider at 0) to get it accepted, after an initial rejection, for "too much noise reduction" :)

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


Rinderart

« Reply #911 on: October 04, 2015, 12:18 »
+4
I DEMAND That reviewers and who they answer to be held to the same standards we are. PERIOD!!  If I were King, I would hire the best Photographers with the most diverse ports that understand this market Not just someone with a fast Internet speed and Likes to work in there pajamas.!! ....  I've known quite a few reviewers in My time. trust me. thats about it.

« Reply #912 on: October 04, 2015, 12:24 »
+1
Trouble is if you were actually any good would you really want to be a reviewer must be a horrible job

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #913 on: October 05, 2015, 14:29 »
+4
It seems the 100% rejection "Poor Execution" vector reviewer is back from vacation.  >:(

Shelma1

« Reply #914 on: October 05, 2015, 14:39 »
+2
Yeah, I got one of those last weekend. Ridiculous. So I resubmitted Monday, it got approved no problem, then I avoided submitting Friday and Saturday this week. I think this reviewer is a person who agreed to be available on weekends but would rather party, so just rejects everything on Saturday and Sunday to get it over with.

« Reply #915 on: October 06, 2015, 02:47 »
+1
I DEMAND That reviewers and who they answer to be held to the same standards we are. PERIOD!!  If I were King, I would hire the best Photographers with the most diverse ports that understand this market Not just someone with a fast Internet speed and Likes to work in there pajamas.!! ....  I've known quite a few reviewers in My time. trust me. thats about it.

Ha!  same old story. Cheap labour, cheaper the better. Professional editors, art-buyers don't come cheap as its a different class. Shareholders! want the money but at the cost of a pittance. ::)

« Reply #916 on: October 07, 2015, 10:00 »
+2
This is the best, in the same image:

Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized.
Overuse--Image has excessive noise reduction and/or excessive sharpening effects applied.

So ...

1. is too soft but too sharp in the same time :)
2. Has to much noise, but i used excessive noise reduction.
3. I used excessive sharpening but is too blurry and too soft.

I don't think the problem is in my garden :)

This is one from a set with 95% rejection after a set in the same way with 100% approval.


« Reply #917 on: October 07, 2015, 11:23 »
0
This is the best, in the same image:

Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized.
Overuse--Image has excessive noise reduction and/or excessive sharpening effects applied.

So ...

1. is too soft but too sharp in the same time :)
2. Has to much noise, but i used excessive noise reduction.
3. I used excessive sharpening but is too blurry and too soft.

I don't think the problem is in my garden :)

This is one from a set with 95% rejection after a set in the same way with 100% approval.

The reviewer might think that your photo is:
1. too soft
2. poorly rasterized (eg, banding)
3. too much noise reduction

I get variations of these "reasons" especially on long exposure photography.
For some reviewers it is hard to believe that 5dm3 is a low noise camera, that a good technique like ETTR is naturally reducing noise levels, and that water or clouds turn soft and silky when the exposure is long enough.

As mentioned above, try adding 0.5% gaussian noise.
The photo will definitely be worse, but it will look more "natural" to some ignorant reviewer.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2015, 11:42 by Zero Talent »

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #918 on: October 07, 2015, 13:32 »
+2
Yeah, I got one of those last weekend. Ridiculous. So I resubmitted Monday, it got approved no problem, then I avoided submitting Friday and Saturday this week. I think this reviewer is a person who agreed to be available on weekends but would rather party, so just rejects everything on Saturday and Sunday to get it over with.

We need to come up with names for these folks. Weekend Willy or something like that.  ::)

aly

« Reply #919 on: October 08, 2015, 03:44 »
+2
This is getting ridiculous-I had the whole batch of 60 assorted images rejected for the same reason-Poor Lighting and Composition. Yet during the week similar batches were accepted. Just what is going on ?? I submit  about 2 or 3 of each batch daily so they are virtually all the same quality.It is about time SS gave better reasons than the same old ones every time. For eg-how can a cloud in a blue sky be poorly composed?  I guarantee if I resubmit these 60 most will get accepted. But why do we have to muck around like this? It is getting seriously stupid.Not to mention the time converting from RAW, zooming to 100%,  cropping, key wording, etc. If I submit to other sites they are accepted no questions. SS must be missing out on  1000's of images daily. And for what purpose? It just raises our ire and causes extra work on our part.  I would  not mind if the same rejection reasons were legitimate but I fail to see how 60 different images can be rejected for the same 2 reasons. Has any one else had this lately??

« Reply #920 on: October 08, 2015, 06:15 »
+2
theres 37 pages of complaints, so it is safe to say, yes, others have experienced this as well lately. as for the cloud, i was told that i had cut off a cloud and therefore it was rejected. unfortunately i have not found a camera yet that can photograph the entire sky in a single image

« Reply #921 on: October 08, 2015, 11:00 »
0
Yeah, I got one of those last weekend. Ridiculous. So I resubmitted Monday, it got approved no problem, then I avoided submitting Friday and Saturday this week. I think this reviewer is a person who agreed to be available on weekends but would rather party, so just rejects everything on Saturday and Sunday to get it over with.

Exact same thing happened to me last weekend. "Poor lighting"....resubmitted same two images taken seconds before/after the first submission and they were accepted on Monday.  :-\ Avoid weekends I guess...but like someone else added: 37 pages of complaints and nothing's changed. Very frustrating.

« Reply #922 on: October 08, 2015, 11:49 »
+3
This is the best, in the same image:

Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized.
Overuse--Image has excessive noise reduction and/or excessive sharpening effects applied.

So ...

1. is too soft but too sharp in the same time :)
2. Has to much noise, but i used excessive noise reduction.
3. I used excessive sharpening but is too blurry and too soft.

I don't think the problem is in my garden :)

This is one from a set with 95% rejection after a set in the same way with 100% approval.

The reviewer might think that your photo is:
1. too soft
2. poorly rasterized (eg, banding)
3. too much noise reduction

I get variations of these "reasons" especially on long exposure photography.
For some reviewers it is hard to believe that 5dm3 is a low noise camera, that a good technique like ETTR is naturally reducing noise levels, and that water or clouds turn soft and silky when the exposure is long enough.

As mentioned above, try adding 0.5% gaussian noise.
The photo will definitely be worse, but it will look more "natural" to some ignorant reviewer.

Lol!
The artificial noise trick worked again! My latest batch was 100% accepted!
This is so stupid! :)
Why should a SS customer buy the equivalent of an ISO 200-400 photo instead of the clean ISO 100 original, available on other sites?

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #923 on: October 10, 2015, 22:23 »
+2
This is the best, in the same image:

Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized.
Overuse--Image has excessive noise reduction and/or excessive sharpening effects applied.

So ...

1. is too soft but too sharp in the same time :)
2. Has to much noise, but i used excessive noise reduction.
3. I used excessive sharpening but is too blurry and too soft.

I don't think the problem is in my garden :)

This is one from a set with 95% rejection after a set in the same way with 100% approval.

The reviewer might think that your photo is:
1. too soft
2. poorly rasterized (eg, banding)
3. too much noise reduction

I get variations of these "reasons" especially on long exposure photography.
For some reviewers it is hard to believe that 5dm3 is a low noise camera, that a good technique like ETTR is naturally reducing noise levels, and that water or clouds turn soft and silky when the exposure is long enough.

As mentioned above, try adding 0.5% gaussian noise.
The photo will definitely be worse, but it will look more "natural" to some ignorant reviewer.

Lol!
The artificial noise trick worked again! My latest batch was 100% accepted!
This is so stupid! :)
Why should a SS customer buy the equivalent of an ISO 200-400 photo instead of the clean ISO 100 original, available on other sites?

Amazing and shocking. They are truly ruining the reputation of skilled reviewers.

« Reply #924 on: October 11, 2015, 14:22 »
+2
Today (Sunday) I got beat up by having all 30 images rejected for focus which I always double check at 100%.  They are my best sellers at other sites and even Alamy has them on their site.  Maybe it's not a good idea to upload on the weekend as some as stated in this forum.  Any thoughts on what will eventually happen with all these rejections we are getting. Thanks.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
17613 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 16:03
by stuttershock
22 Replies
6950 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 18:37
by shudderstok
85 Replies
43849 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 16:02
by stuttershock
10 Replies
6706 Views
Last post June 22, 2015, 14:07
by Freedom
212 Replies
34089 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