Author Topic: Unfortunately I forgot how to shoot photos (Read 22763 times)

panicAttack · « **on:** August 16, 2014, 07:54 »

Yes, it can happen.

I take photos for about 5 years, not very long time but I do believe I'm getting better. On stock sites I am about 2-3 years.

I had about 70-80% acceptance rate for a long time, but last few months according to Shutterstock reviewers I totally forgot how to shoot and edit my photos. My last few batches, acceptance rate is about 10 -15 %. Mostly focus, lighting issues and composition.

But according to most other sites like Fotolia, 123rf, Dreamstime (ok, and IStock too, but it isn't very relevant because of their too high acceptance rate) I am still getting better.

Strange.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #1 on:** August 16, 2014, 08:13 »

Quote from: panicAttack on August 16, 2014, 07:54

I had about 70-80% acceptance rate for a long time, but last few months according to Shutterstock reviewers I totally forgot how to shoot and edit my photos. My last few batches, acceptance rate is about 10 -15 %. Mostly focus, lighting issues and composition.

Strange.

strange but true. still misery is less painful with company,
there are already countless pages on this mysterious issue on ss forum
plus one here on this forum.

and as light consolation, there is also another thread here on low sales in both ss and is.

so cheers up, always look on the bright side of life...
(whistle)


Monty Python - always look on the bright side of life (with lyrics)

(whistle)...

spike · « **Reply #2 on:** August 16, 2014, 08:20 »

wow

much strange

very sadness

wow

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #3 on:** August 16, 2014, 09:30 »

Quote from: panicAttack on August 16, 2014, 07:54

Yes, it can happen.

I take photos for about 5 years, not very long time but I do believe I'm getting better. On stock sites I am about 2-3 years.

I had about 70-80% acceptance rate for a long time, but last few months according to Shutterstock reviewers I totally forgot how to shoot and edit my photos. My last few batches, acceptance rate is about 10 -15 %. Mostly focus, lighting issues and composition.

But according to most other sites like Fotolia, 123rf, Dreamstime (ok, and IStock too, but it isn't very relevant because of their too high acceptance rate) I am still getting better.

Strange.

I don't remember when I began to take photos, maybe I was 10 or 12 y.o.
But I remember that I work as a professional for more than 35 years now.
And yes, despite my few experience, it happens that I get some "crazy" rejections from Shutterstock.
When I don't agree with that I just upload the images again or, if I have some real doubt, I ask to their contributor service what is the real problem.
Most of the time the images get accepted if they are good (or not so bad).

*By the way I don't think that there is any matter to open the 127th thread about "the bad Shutterstock inspectors"…

*Whistling…

Goofy · « **Reply #4 on:** August 16, 2014, 09:52 »

that's okay, last time I did an on site session I totally forget my memory chip and my memory! This business can turn us into a vegetable at times... $:-\$

PS
Time for a vacation without any camera equipment or cell phone!

Daryl Ray · « **Reply #5 on:** August 16, 2014, 10:11 »

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on August 16, 2014, 09:30

When I don't agree with that I just upload the images again or, if I have some real doubt, I ask to their contributor service what is the real problem.
Most of the time the images get accepted if they are good (or not so bad).

Careful, I was doing this for about the last year, ever since the obvious change in the way they approve images began. And even though I get a 60-80% acceptance rate on my resubmitted images, I recently received an email from SS threatening to "suspend" my account because of "excessive" duplicate uploads. They had no interest in discussing this with me further, and they no longer get the benefit of my resubmissions, falsely rejected images go to their competitors only now. Their call.

Julied83 · « **Reply #6 on:** August 18, 2014, 07:05 »

That just happens to me with differents images that I didn't took at the same times. And they are not a serie. What's that ? Never happens before.
Maybe there's one rotten apple in the basket ... inspector ... I'll reupload but what a lost of time.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #7 on:** August 18, 2014, 23:31 »

considering the actual oversupply i'm wondering if there's still a sound reason to be so picky on QC and inspection as due to how the search engine works the eventual bad images will quickly be sandboxed and forgotten anyway so what's the point of such a strict selection process ? i mean who cares if there are 2 millions still life pics instead of 500K ? buyers will never notice.

the real issue is keyword spamming, not the abundance of subpar quality images.

Alamy's "see what sticks on the wall" approach is much more realistic and buyer-friendly in my opinion even if it suffers as well from keyword spamming.

and keyword spamming is the obvious result when agencies refuse to keyword in-house so they can only blame themselves.

how else do you think they could cut costs to the bone and providing the same overall product as RM agencies ? they can't ... there's always a price to pay.

ShadySue · « **Reply #8 on:** August 19, 2014, 06:19 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on August 18, 2014, 23:31

the real issue is keyword spamming, not the abundance of subpar quality images.
Alamy's "see what sticks on the wall" approach is much more realistic and buyer-friendly in my opinion even if it suffers as well from keyword spamming.
and keyword spamming is the obvious result when agencies refuse to keyword in-house so they can only blame themselves.

I agree totally with the problem being the curse of keyword spamming (some searches on Alamy are a nightmare), but I'm not sure I'd let an agency keyword my images. I've seen far too many mistakes on Getty (old, main collection, not recent ingestions), plus the Getty CV is so limited, some of my images don't have either the species name or the location. Going from iS to Getty at least, there's apparently nothing they can do (according to CR).

Nikovsk · « **Reply #9 on:** August 19, 2014, 06:36 »

I think if there was a limit of 10 keywords per image, results would be much more relevant.

ShadySue · « **Reply #10 on:** August 19, 2014, 06:49 »

Quote from: Nikovsk on August 19, 2014, 06:36

I think if there was a limit of 10 keywords per image, results would be much more relevant.

They would, and some of my photos would be fine with five, but others need twenty or more. Depends on the image.

Nikovsk · « **Reply #11 on:** August 19, 2014, 08:10 »

Now back to the topic, yes SS rejects all my photos for Composition and Poor Lighting, the two most subjective reasons. What I'm doing is working more with illustrations there (SS accepts 100%). Photos are going only to IS and FT where they are accepted and sell well.

JPSDK · « **Reply #12 on:** August 19, 2014, 10:59 »

ja ja, the reviewers, the *insult removed*, incompetent and all. Also Attila, and his gang.
Upload them again because the photographer is always right.

Why cant you guys grow up, and realize that your are competing in the big supply and demand game, and you are loosing.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #13 on:** August 19, 2014, 11:39 »

Quote from: Nikovsk on August 19, 2014, 08:10

Now back to the topic, yes SS rejects all my photos for Composition and Poor Lighting, the two most subjective reasons. What I'm doing is working more with illustrations there (SS accepts 100%). Photos are going only to IS and FT where they are accepted and sell well.

I just had another bunch of jpg illustrations rejected again. New reason for one this time: they wanted a translation of the description. The description in question? "Italian wine." what language would they like me to translate that into?

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #14 on:** August 19, 2014, 15:16 »

Perhaps they wanted a little bit more than "Italian Wine"?

More like.

An illustration of a bottle of Italian wine isolated on white?

Just a thought since we have no idea what it really is.

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 19, 2014, 11:39

Quote from: Nikovsk on August 19, 2014, 08:10
Now back to the topic, yes SS rejects all my photos for Composition and Poor Lighting, the two most subjective reasons. What I'm doing is working more with illustrations there (SS accepts 100%). Photos are going only to IS and FT where they are accepted and sell well.

I just had another bunch of jpg illustrations rejected again. New reason for one this time: they wanted a translation of the description. The description in question? "Italian wine." what language would they like me to translate that into?

Shelma1 · « **Reply #15 on:** August 19, 2014, 19:01 »

It's a humorous illustration of a glass of red wine wearing a gondolier hat. But the point is moot...the eps was accepted with no problem, as were all the other eps files, but all the jpgs were rejected again, most for noise that doesn't exist. (Adding to the description won't provide a translation, which is what they asked for.)

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #16 on:** August 19, 2014, 23:09 »

So it was a dual rejection something you didn't mention in your original post?

Quote

I just had another bunch of jpg illustrations rejected again. New reason for one this time: they wanted a translation of the description. The description in question? "Italian wine." what language would they like me to translate that into?

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 19, 2014, 19:01

It's a humorous illustration of a glass of red wine wearing a gondolier hat. But the point is moot...the eps was accepted with no problem, as were all the other eps files, but all the jpgs were rejected again, most for noise that doesn't exist. (Adding to the description won't provide a translation, which is what they asked for.)

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #17 on:** August 20, 2014, 06:13 »

Fortunately, I haven't forgotten. I ran a roll of Fomapan 100 through the old Mamiya yesterday, unmetered with guessed exposure times, and the whole lot came out brilliantly (gave em eight minutes in Fomadon P at 20C).

I just saw that someone underexposed Foma 100 by three stops and gave 1 hour stand development in Rodinal 1+50 and got some brilliant low-contrast retro-style results, very like the work of Frederick Evans back around 1900 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_H._Evans. I must try this out.

Ooops! Sorry! Talking photography on MSG! Mea culpa! I'd better go and have (yet) another nice ouzo rather than boring you all with this......

Shelma1 · « **Reply #18 on:** August 20, 2014, 07:57 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on August 19, 2014, 23:09

So it was a dual rejection something you didn't mention in your original post?

Quote
I just had another bunch of jpg illustrations rejected again. New reason for one this time: they wanted a translation of the description. The description in question? "Italian wine." what language would they like me to translate that into?

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 19, 2014, 19:01
It's a humorous illustration of a glass of red wine wearing a gondolier hat. But the point is moot...the eps was accepted with no problem, as were all the other eps files, but all the jpgs were rejected again, most for noise that doesn't exist. (Adding to the description won't provide a translation, which is what they asked for.)

No. At Shutterstock you submit an eps and "preview" jpg together (as you know), plus you can submit the same jpg to be sold on its own. If you look at my port you'll see many "duplicate" images, because buyers can buy either eps or jpg. So I submitted the eps/jpg combo and the identical jpg alone. The eps/jpg were accepted and the solo jpg was rejected.

There's something going on with the inspection of jpg files that doesn't happen with eps files, where jpgs—whether photos or illustrations—are rejected for reasons that are nonexistent.

To make the point more clearly, I'm apparently among the test group for a new feature that gives buyers the option to purchase a large jpg version of an eps file rather than the eps. That "preview" jpg is the exact same jpg I submitted separately. So where I live a buyer can buy the jpg anyway, even though the separate jpg was rejected by the jpg reviewer.

Capisce?

Mantis · « **Reply #19 on:** August 20, 2014, 08:01 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 20, 2014, 07:57

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on August 19, 2014, 23:09
So it was a dual rejection something you didn't mention in your original post?

Quote
I just had another bunch of jpg illustrations rejected again. New reason for one this time: they wanted a translation of the description. The description in question? "Italian wine." what language would they like me to translate that into?

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 19, 2014, 19:01
It's a humorous illustration of a glass of red wine wearing a gondolier hat. But the point is moot...the eps was accepted with no problem, as were all the other eps files, but all the jpgs were rejected again, most for noise that doesn't exist. (Adding to the description won't provide a translation, which is what they asked for.)

No. At Shutterstock you submit an eps and "preview" jpg together (as you know), plus you can submit the same jpg to be sold on its own. If you look at my port you'll see many "duplicate" images, because buyers can buy either eps or jpg. So I submitted the eps/jpg combo and the identical jpg alone. The eps/jpg were accepted and the solo jpg was rejected.

There's something going on with the inspection of jpg files that doesn't happen with eps files, where jpgs—whether photos or illustrations—are rejected for reasons that are nonexistent.

To make the point more clearly, I'm apparently among the test group for a new feature that gives buyers the option to purchase a large jpg version of an eps file rather than the eps. That "preview" jpg is the exact same jpg I submitted separately. So where I live a buyer can buy the jpg anyway, even though the separate jpg was rejected by the jpg reviewer.

Capisce?

He tends to speak without knowing what he is speaking about.

HypnoCreative · « **Reply #20 on:** August 28, 2014, 11:23 »

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on August 16, 2014, 09:30

Quote from: panicAttack on August 16, 2014, 07:54
Yes, it can happen.

I take photos for about 5 years, not very long time but I do believe I'm getting better. On stock sites I am about 2-3 years.

I had about 70-80% acceptance rate for a long time, but last few months according to Shutterstock reviewers I totally forgot how to shoot and edit my photos. My last few batches, acceptance rate is about 10 -15 %. Mostly focus, lighting issues and composition.

But according to most other sites like Fotolia, 123rf, Dreamstime (ok, and IStock too, but it isn't very relevant because of their too high acceptance rate) I am still getting better.

Strange.

I don't remember when I began to take photos, maybe I was 10 or 12 y.o.
But I remember that I work as a professional for more than 35 years now.
And yes, despite my few experience, it happens that I get some "crazy" rejections from Shutterstock.
When I don't agree with that I just upload the images again or, if I have some real doubt, I ask to their contributor service what is the real problem.
Most of the time the images get accepted if they are good (or not so bad).

*By the way I don't think that there is any matter to open the 127th thread about "the bad Shutterstock inspectors"…

*Whistling…

Beppe, ach sheli, is there an emotional relationship between you and SS?

You oppose all critics towards SS in an almost aggressive way.. Strange. Makes me think SS favors -some- contributors.

stockastic · « **Reply #21 on:** August 28, 2014, 13:25 »

I'm not submitting another photo to SS until they come clean, admit that some degree of automated inspection has been in use for a while, that there have been "issues", and that it's been undergoing "tuning". Or state unequivocally that there is no use of software in reviewing, and that all evaluations of lighting, focus etc are done by human eyes and brains, not software.

Note the phrase "some degree". It may be that the automated screens aren't run on everything coming in, or on every contributor. It may be that every image is in fact "looked at" by a human, but that might be just a cursory glance.

There's no need for SS to post any more statements here that sort of look like they're ruling out any use of automation, but on close reading are just weasel words that leave nice loopholes and evade the real issue.

I'm not holding my breath.

SLStudios · « **Reply #22 on:** August 28, 2014, 13:45 »

I went through a period of time that I could not get anything through SS. I even created a thread about it and spent several weeks discussing the whole situation with a few others here about how bad it was. The funny thing is, I questioned what had changed and what I discovered was that it wasn't me but it was. They did make some changes to what they will take. No, they have not admitted that but it is clearly the case. I was submitting the same shallow DOF images that I had been and they clearly were not liking them anymore. It was that simple. What I was shooting no longer fit their needs. I have since adjusted what I am doing and am having little to no rejections.

Bottom line is that every agency is different so it falls upon us to figure out what they want then submit images that fall within those guidelines. They don't hate you. There is no Attila. And you didn't forget how to shoot. You just have to get what they like in your head and shoot images in that style for SS.

Mantis · « **Reply #23 on:** August 28, 2014, 15:27 »

Quote from: stockastic on August 28, 2014, 13:25

I'm not submitting another photo to SS until they come clean, admit that some degree of automated inspection has been in use for a while, that there have been "issues", and that it's been undergoing "tuning". Or state unequivocally that there is no use of software in reviewing, and that all evaluations of lighting, focus etc are done by human eyes and brains, not software.

Note the phrase "some degree". It may be that the automated screens aren't run on everything coming in, or on every contributor. It may be that every image is in fact "looked at" by a human, but that might be just a cursory glance.

There's no need for SS to post any more statements here that sort of look like they're ruling out any use of automation, but on close reading are just weasel words that leave nice loopholes and evade the real issue.

I'm not holding my breath.

Their financials disclosed and praised that they use "proprietary inspection software" or something along those lines. I think Gablax found that and posted it here. Scott has never denied it, just that all images are reviewed by humans. Whether that human is just clicking the button the software tells them too or making a deep dive and following inspection checklists is the unknown.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #24 on:** August 28, 2014, 18:30 »

Quote from: stockastic on August 28, 2014, 13:25

I'm not submitting another photo to SS until they come clean

I'm not holding my breath.

i think many (re the thread on SS forum of the same issue) felt the same (for months),
but went blue in the face and have long lost consciousness

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Unfortunately I forgot how to shoot photos (Read 22763 times)

panicAttack

etudiante_rapide

spike

Beppe Grillo

Goofy

Daryl Ray

Julied83

Hobostocker

ShadySue

Nikovsk

ShadySue

Nikovsk

JPSDK

Shelma1

ruxpriencdiam

Shelma1

ruxpriencdiam

BaldricksTrousers

Shelma1

Mantis

HypnoCreative

stockastic

SLStudios

Mantis

etudiante_rapide

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors