Author Topic: SS rejections explosion!!! (Read 40545 times)

shutterdrop · « **Reply #100 on:** January 08, 2009, 08:22 »

I submitted a small batch of 4 images and 3 were rejected. It must be the reviewer. All of a sudden my approval rate dropped from 60-80 % to 25%.

What is up at SS? Has SS changed their name to Super Suck?

Tuilay · « **Reply #101 on:** January 08, 2009, 09:20 »

Quote from: shutterdrop on January 08, 2009, 08:22

(edited)
What is up at SS? Has SS changed their name to Super Suck?

oh? i thought they had change it to ShItterstock

hali · « **Reply #102 on:** January 08, 2009, 09:30 »

Quote from: Tuilay on January 08, 2009, 09:20

Quote from: shutterdrop on January 08, 2009, 08:22
(edited)
What is up at SS? Has SS changed their name to Super Suck?
oh? i thought they had change it to ShItterstock

lol Tuilay, are you sure you're not the real Bruce Willis. comedian !

melking · « **Reply #103 on:** January 08, 2009, 09:36 »

I am sorry you are finding rejections bad....I still get rejections....but you just have to take them and learn from them! Most of the time if you take a look at your photos you can see what the reviewer is talking about.

yuliang11 · « **Reply #104 on:** January 08, 2009, 10:09 »

Quote from: Tuilay on January 08, 2009, 09:20

Quote from: shutterdrop on January 08, 2009, 08:22
(edited)
What is up at SS? Has SS changed their name to Super Suck?

oh? i thought they had change it to ShItterstock

nah i'm pretty sure it is suckerstock or something like that

shutterdrop · « **Reply #105 on:** January 08, 2009, 12:08 »

Quote from: melking on January 08, 2009, 09:36

I am sorry you are finding rejections bad....I still get rejections....but you just have to take them and learn from them! Most of the time if you take a look at your photos you can see what the reviewer is talking about.

Same images are being accepted at other agencies. What is SS review talking about if it is accepted at 3 other agencies?
I would conclude that SS or SS reviewer has a case Ruby Red Rash.

Pixart · « **Reply #106 on:** January 12, 2009, 15:56 »

Wow, they just shot down all of my photos except the one of the bunch with the least sales potential.

Noise?

I think I know what noise is. Do you think they mean they don't like the bokeh in the trees that are about 1/2 km away from the subject? There's no noise in the sky.

Ah well. Already forgotten. NEXT!

Fran · « **Reply #107 on:** January 13, 2009, 06:10 »

I take it back: 14 out of 24 rejected, but it was mostly my fault. I still close too much on the subject and they reject for cropping.

CCK · « **Reply #108 on:** January 13, 2009, 07:45 »

Perhaps it is not correct to measure it on the number of rejections, it should rather be unwarrented rejections. I upload a bath of 10 every Sunday to get a review on Monday, and for the past couple of weeks I've had an 80% acceptance rate, in itself not bad.
But: The two photos rejected today: One for overuse of noise reduction software: I didn't use any.
Second one: Lack of composition, and I believe the reviewer was wrong with that as well.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #109 on:** January 13, 2009, 08:07 »

I had few rejections due to overuse of noise reduction software lately. I never had that kind of rejection before. I have one image accepted on every bigger agency (IS, DT, 123RF, BigStock, StockXpert, except FT (Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality) reason....Not to mention smaller agencies.
So, I don't mind. I already sold it on 123rf after only 9 views:)

SS rejected it twice. I am talking about this photo, already submitted here

Here it is again, on BigStock

and here it is on other sites:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/people/8164919-boy-sleeping.php?id=8164919
http://www.dreamstime.com/boy-sleeping-image7630953
http://www.stockxpert.com/browse_image/view/30247711
http://www.123rf.com/photo_4085293.html

Besides this "overuse of noise reduction software" reason on SS I also have many rejections on FT because my photograph did not reach their desired level of aesthetic quality. Actually, this is the only reason for rejection on FT I get lately.

Danicek · « **Reply #110 on:** January 13, 2009, 08:28 »

And do you use noise reduction? If so then why?

Dreamframer · « **Reply #111 on:** January 13, 2009, 09:12 »

Of course I use noise reduction when, and where is needed, usually with a mask I use it because SS hates noise, everyone knows that. This image was takem at ISO 100, and two lights 500W each and SB800 speedlight with a diffuser. There was just a bit of noise below boy's chin, but that was all. I removed it with a mask.
Anyway, if I really overused noise reduction in this image, IS would rejected it first because of "overfiltering", because they hate overuse of noise reduction. They accept images with slight noise, rather then images with overused noise reduction

travelstock · « **Reply #112 on:** January 13, 2009, 10:35 »

I've noticed a big increase in "focus" and "composition" type rejections. After over 2 years contributing, I think I've worked out when an image is in focus or not. I just hope they fix the problem. Thankfully SS is still performing well in terms of sales, and the "on demand" sales are going from strength to strength.

CCK · « **Reply #113 on:** January 19, 2009, 23:34 »

I suddenly had a rejection explotion with my latest batch, all but one rejected, and for the same reason: "Please remove location information in title. This is not necessary for stock images."

Well, perhaps not neccessary, but not allowed, especially with travel photos? Then SS must realise they don't use my title, they take the description as a title.

disorderly · « **Reply #114 on:** January 20, 2009, 10:25 »

Quote from: CCK on January 19, 2009, 23:34

I suddenly had a rejection explotion with my latest batch, all but one rejected, and for the same reason: "Please remove location information in title. This is not necessary for stock images."

I just got a bunch of these, and wrote to Support about it. I've included location information on outdoor shots since I started, and I've had clients tell me how much they appreciate the information. On Dreamstime a bunch of my shots were found and purchased precisely because they indicated where they were shot; the buyers were looking for architecture or scenery that's representative of a particular place. How is that kind of detail not necessary?

shutterdrop · « **Reply #115 on:** January 30, 2009, 10:30 »

4 out of 4 rejected in record time. Lighting Lighting They were shot on a bright day with light cloud cover. I quess I will start shooting everything is a studio!

Smiling Jack · « **Reply #116 on:** January 30, 2009, 12:11 »

Hi
I get a lot of rejections for "composition".From the reviewer or agency point of view what does the word "composition"mean to them.Not complaining just trying to understand the term as used in microstock.Thank you.
Smiling Jack

anton9 · « **Reply #117 on:** January 31, 2009, 07:40 »

Ive not noticed any change with rejections all ive noticed is sales slowed down

shank_ali · « **Reply #118 on:** January 31, 2009, 14:09 »

Shutterstock is of course istockphoto's main rival and as such it realises if the library grows too large it will be harder for a buyer to find a file.
The contributor base grows on both sites and i would also guess the quality improves to such a degree they can be very choosy what they accept.

Say you OWNED a library??
Would you want it filled with 6 million books of which only 3 million were ever read or would you like 3 million good books that would likely attract a viewer.
These two big micro sites will start major library culls within 2 years !

null · « **Reply #119 on:** January 31, 2009, 14:18 »

Quote from: shank_ali on January 31, 2009, 14:09

These two big micro sites will start major library culls within 2 years !

I guess you apply the same rule to a wine cellar.

Let's cull out books older than 50 years too. Shakespeare? Old crap. Let's all starting to read Germaine Greer!

sharply_done · « **Reply #120 on:** January 31, 2009, 14:25 »

Germaine Greer ... heh, good one!

Tuilay · « **Reply #121 on:** January 31, 2009, 14:36 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on January 31, 2009, 14:18

Quote from: shank_ali on January 31, 2009, 14:09
These two big micro sites will start major library culls within 2 years !

I guess you apply the same rule to a wine cellar.
Let's cull out books older than 50 years too. Shakespeare? Old crap. Let's all starting to read Germaine Greer!

actually the old wine cellar is the reverse of the library. you keep the old wine and give away the new.
as for shakespeare being old crap, oi , careful there flemish ! i quite like my old collections of shake's !

lephotography · « **Reply #122 on:** January 31, 2009, 16:05 »

I did not submit much this last month but submitted the same to all the agencies and SS rejected the images everyone else accepted with reason of artifacts... I know there are no artifacts in it because I made sure of it before I submitted to all of them at 100% Only thing you can do is submit it again...which you are not suppose to do. I think most people do it anyway.
I have just learned that some will accept my images and some wont and sometimes the ones they deny will be the most successful somewhere else. Right or wrong.... You just have to learn not to take it personal and just go on and keep uploading.

shutterdrop · « **Reply #123 on:** March 05, 2009, 08:42 »

3 out 4 rejected for overuse of filter. For years images were rejected for noise, now being rejected for over correction of noise. Make up your mind SS!!!

These images were accepted at the other agencies, but not at SS.

Is this an SS issue or a reviewer issue?

null · « **Reply #124 on:** March 05, 2009, 12:08 »

Quote from: shutterdrop on March 05, 2009, 08:42

Is this an SS issue or a reviewer issue?

It's Atilla the Reviewer. He wanders from site to site and creates havock, lusting for rejections. He comes and goes. It's the Microstock version of the Grim Reaper.

Actually I made a comment here about SS changing a title of one of my images, and I got a very nice email from a SS lady explaining why. So watch out what you post, SS is watching you

Usually the reviewers are * right. Accidents can happen, but then, next time you will have another reviewer which smoothes out the arbitrary element in any reviewing, especially of borderline images. SS is a numbers game, so why bother about an odd rejection? Just upload more. The time it takes to email/protest you can process other shots.

My last batch had 6/10 rejects, some for keywords. Usually it's 1-2 rejects. I'll just wait to upload another batch for a week till Atilla returned to his home base, at iStock.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: SS rejections explosion!!! (Read 40545 times)

shutterdrop

Tuilay

hali

melking

yuliang11

shutterdrop

Pixart

Fran

CCK

Dreamframer

Danicek

Dreamframer

travelstock

CCK

disorderly

shutterdrop

Smiling Jack

anton9

shank_ali

null

sharply_done

Tuilay

lephotography

shutterdrop

null

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors