MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: SS strict rejection policy  (Read 796 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 04, 2022, 00:11 »
+1
So, Shutterstock reviewers are rejecting photos left and right, and often with mistakes.
For example, they reject the whole series that I have done, multiple times, because the shirt that the model is wearing, had some material that reminds of some protected Burberry shirt. It is similar, but the colors are not the same, so, it's not protected.
They often confuse a bird in the distance, or snow, with the specs on a sensor. Also had a problem, when the photos got rejected for a reason I cannot remember now, but it was just some mist in the photo.
Not to mention strict policy on sharpness and while other agencies are not that strict, those photos are generating income, for me, and for the agency.
So, people who are reviewing our images, be aware that we invest money, time, and a lot of effort in these images, that you reject, and for your mistake, we are loosing time, and money both.


« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2022, 00:40 »
+4
Correction "shutterstock AI" is rejecting photos left and right, and often with mistakes.

and all for 10 whole cents!  :(

« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2022, 01:01 »
+2
Well, I must be one of the lucky ones, as about 90% of my submissions get through first time. I can normally guess which ones wont. Those shots normally contain water and foliage, that the AI classes as noise or focus issues.

« Reply #3 on: May 04, 2022, 01:14 »
+2
I also get more than 95% of my submission through the first time, so I don't have a problem with them other than their similarity rejections (Which you can mostly avoid by not submitting images from the same shoot in one batch) If you look at their newest images of any random topic you will usually find countless almost identical images where the camera was moved 5 centimeters and that's all the difference, and then you will get two images form the same shoot with a competely different composition rejected for being too similar. There similar rules are also pretty concrete, yet some reviewers seem to have never looked at them or understood them - in both ways. Some accept images that are way too similar and should never have been accepted, others go crazy and reject every photo with the same subject, no matter how different.

Other than that I am almost glad that they have become a bit stricter - I was only looking through my old photos last week to sort some out to possibly submit to FAA and, oh m gosh - there are so many old photos of mine SS accepted that I would not even try to submit these days as the focus is horrible. I am almost ashamed at the thought that a customer might download one of these only seeing the small preview and then realizing how blurry the image is in full size. If I didn't know that 95% of my photos only end up being used in small size on the internet anyways, I might even delete these photos from my port.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2022, 02:35 by Firn »

« Reply #4 on: May 04, 2022, 01:28 »
0
Well, I must be one of the lucky ones, as about 90% of my submissions get through first time. I can normally guess which ones wont. Those shots normally contain water and foliage, that the AI classes as noise or focus issues.

Are you guys sure that the problem is in the AI? If that's the case, then that AI is faulty.

« Reply #5 on: May 04, 2022, 01:32 »
0
I also get more than 95% of my submission through the first time, so I don't have a problem with them other than their similarity rejections (Which you can mostly avoid by not submitting images from the same shoot in one batch) If you look at their newest images of any random topic you will usually find countless almost identical images where the camera was moced 5 centimeters and that's all the difference, and then you will get two images form the same shoot with a competely different composition rejected for being too similar. There similar rules are also pretty concrete, yet some reviewers seem to have never looked at them or understood them.

Other than that I am almost glad that they have become a bit stricter - I was only looking through my old photos last week to sort some out to possibly submit to FAA and, oh m gosh - there are so many old photos of mine SS accepted that I would not even try to submit these days as the focus is horrible. I am almost ashamed at the thought that a customer might download one of these only seeing the small preview and then realizing how blurry the image is in full size. If I didn't know that 95% of my photos only end up being used in small size on the internet anyways, I might even delete these photos from my port.

When I downsize my images, as you guys said, most of them get accepted, but does that means that they will not be sold for an extended license and mostly at 10c?

« Reply #6 on: May 04, 2022, 01:47 »
+1

When I downsize my images, as you guys said, most of them get accepted, but does that means that they will not be sold for an extended license and mostly at 10c?

That will completely depend on what the customer wants the image for, not necessarily the type of licence. If he wants to print it on a huge billboard in town, then, yes, small image size might keep him from buying the image. But if he wants to print it as a postcard, then the minimum size Shutterstock requires is more than enough. I guess in the end it's probably like this: Downsizing will not keep you from getting extended licence sales, but it will make the chance of it smaller as it does limit the possible usage of an image.
But, in the end, the one image you won't get an extended license sale for sure is the image that never got accepted, so I'd say it's better to have a downsized image accepted than not having it accepted at all.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2022, 01:51 by Firn »

« Reply #7 on: May 04, 2022, 02:25 »
0

When I downsize my images, as you guys said, most of them get accepted, but does that means that they will not be sold for an extended license and mostly at 10c?

That will completely depend on what the customer wants the image for, not necessarily the type of licence. If he wants to print it on a huge billboard in town, then, yes, small image size might keep him from buying the image. But if he wants to print it as a postcard, then the minimum size Shutterstock requires is more than enough. I guess in the end it's probably like this: Downsizing will not keep you from getting extended licence sales, but it will make the chance of it smaller as it does limit the possible usage of an image.
But, in the end, the one image you won't get an extended license sale for sure is the image that never got accepted, so I'd say it's better to have a downsized image accepted than not having it accepted at all.

Thanks Firn, will keep that in mind ;)

« Reply #8 on: May 04, 2022, 04:11 »
0
Correction "shutterstock AI" is rejecting photos left and right, and often with mistakes.

and all for 10 whole cents!  :(

I've just asked SS help and got the answer that there is no AI doing the reviews, it's all done by humans.

« Reply #9 on: May 04, 2022, 04:46 »
+1
Correction "shutterstock AI" is rejecting photos left and right, and often with mistakes.

and all for 10 whole cents!  :(

I've just asked SS help and got the answer that there is no AI doing the reviews, it's all done by humans.

Contrary to what shutterstock's owners previously stated.

Anyway SS help is manned by other contributors and they aren't party to the inner workings of SS

« Reply #10 on: May 04, 2022, 05:35 »
0
Well, I must be one of the lucky ones, as about 90% of my submissions get through first time. I can normally guess which ones wont. Those shots normally contain water and foliage, that the AI classes as noise or focus issues.

Are you guys sure that the problem is in the AI? If that's the case, then that AI is faulty.

It's not faulty, it's just not very intelligent. 

« Reply #11 on: May 04, 2022, 08:31 »
+1
I find that it depends on the type of photo.

For example, I find it almost impossible to get landscapes accepted or anything that has a lot of trees/foliage. The usually get rejected for focus no matter how hard I try.

On the other hand, most shots I take of objects or buildings (without a lot of trees around them) or shots I take at home of various objects are accepted first time.

The good news is that Adobe usually accepts those shots which SS rejects and they pay more when one of them is downloaded by a customer.

« Reply #12 on: May 04, 2022, 16:38 »
+4
The whole issue with technical image quality and rejections is absurd. Two of my images with over 1000 downloads at shutterstock, only a few megapixels in size, taken years ago with a poor compact camera and certainly not accepted in terms of quality today, still sell regularly. They still sell even as extended licenses. And another image from back then in the same "poor" quality is still offered at FAA for large print products.

Personally, I am annoyed about the discussion of the technical quality of images anyway. What do buyers expect for the pennies they pay?

I think it's a huge mistake to worry about this as a contributor. If shutterstock doesn't want the images, then just sell them somewhere else - for more money.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2022, 16:54 by Wilm »

« Reply #13 on: May 04, 2022, 22:06 »
+1
Shutterstock rejections have become absurd.  I had almost 100% acceptance there and elsewhere too.
They use out of focus or camera shake as excuse-- totally bogus.  Shot on non-moving tripod with best aperature setting.  Same studio and settings as all the others they accept in studio.  I look at my photos at 200%-- yep, in focus and no camera shake and accepted by place stricter than SS.

I do have to agree, for 10 cents, for most sales no matter what level, SS does not deserve most of the technical qualities they expect.

« Reply #14 on: May 05, 2022, 12:16 »
0
Two of my images with over 1000 downloads at shutterstock, only a few megapixels in size, taken years ago with a poor compact camera and certainly not accepted in terms of quality today, still sell regularly.
I have a few images like this. I even uploaded a better versions of those images, but people still buying a poor quality photos.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
4566 Views
Last post March 07, 2007, 11:39
by Lizard
21 Replies
5040 Views
Last post October 16, 2007, 12:56
by Beckyabell
14 Replies
4583 Views
Last post October 22, 2007, 14:07
by Dr Bouz
9 Replies
3680 Views
Last post March 14, 2008, 12:05
by madelaide
18 Replies
8217 Views
Last post August 03, 2010, 10:54
by lefty

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle