Author Topic: What's with SS rejecting all photos while others accepted them all (Read 4349 times)

lonerunner · « **on:** March 21, 2022, 18:13 »

Recently from last 2 batch of uploads Shutterstock rejected all of my photos with some various reasons. I don't know if they are dying, someone hate me at SS or they don't like Easter.

I had a photoshoot with Easter decoration, Eggs in a basket with white rabbit, just a batch of 40 photos, and every few days when I have time I work on few of them and upload to bunch of stock websites.

First batch of uploads was 10 photos and many of them got accepted except couple being duplicated, which is reasonable. Next 2 times I uploaded again 10 photos and another 12 photos.

Shutterstock rejected all of them even though they are from same batch, same quality, good lighting.

I uploaded all these photos to different stock websites also at the same time and other websites accepted almost all of the photos if not all.

And now I have Alamy, Depositphotos, Pond5, 123RF accepted all 32 photos, with Adobe and BigStock rejected few of them for being too similar. But Shutterstock rejecting all of them from 2nd and 3rd batch of uploads and now I have only 6 accepted from them.

This is very strange as Shutterstock usually accept 90% of my photos uploaded.

Did you have similar problems lately, should I try to reupload photos again for 2nd round of review, maybe write something in note for reviewer or just forget it?

Also I usually make about 10$ sales per month but this month it's already 22nd of March and I didn't make any sale in this month, 0$.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #1 on:** March 22, 2022, 11:11 »

Because they have too many images, and they don't care anymore. It costs money to do realistic reviews. This way they just keep the grinder running, photos in, and we keep trying to get things accepted against the odds of a real review.

Rejection reasons (1)
Focus: The main subject is out of focus or is not in focus due to camera shake, motion blur, overuse of noise reduction, or technical limitations of the equipment used (e.g. autofocus searching, camera sensor quality, etc).

It doesn't matter what anyplace else does or that they accept the same images. SSTK has gone insane. They have a Hal 9000 system doing reviews now.

383,327,819 stock photos, vectors, and illustrations are available royalty-free.

The system is so screwed up that they can't even complete the intake of new images properly.

Jaggy · « **Reply #2 on:** March 22, 2022, 11:59 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 22, 2022, 11:11

Because they have too many images, and they don't care anymore. It costs money to do realistic reviews. This way they just keep the grinder running, photos in, and we keep trying to get things accepted against the odds of a real review.

Rejection reasons (1)
Focus: The main subject is out of focus or is not in focus due to camera shake, motion blur, overuse of noise reduction, or technical limitations of the equipment used (e.g. autofocus searching, camera sensor quality, etc).

It doesn't matter what anyplace else does or that they accept the same images. SSTK has gone insane. They have a Hal 9000 system doing reviews now.

383,327,819 stock photos, vectors, and illustrations are available royalty-free.

The system is so screwed up that they can't even complete the intake of new images properly.

Agreed. It's become ridiculous. I made a special effort with a couple of recent shots - tripod, cable release, focus stacking - and they still got rejected. Fortunately, Adobe accepted them.

In the past, I've generally been able to understand rejections but, recently, anything and everything is getting tossed out. And there is no logic to it.

I'm at the point where I'm not sure it's worth uploading to SS any more. More trouble than it's worth.

Firn · « **Reply #3 on:** March 22, 2022, 12:03 »

Quote from: lonerunner on March 21, 2022, 18:13

Did you have similar problems lately, should I try to reupload photos again for 2nd round of review, maybe write something in note for reviewer or just forget it?

No, I don't have any problems like this.
If you are 100% sure the rejection reasons are unjustified and you think the images have a good sale potential and it's worth your time, then yes, you should try again.
There is no option to write Shutterstock reviewers any note.

Unamas · « **Reply #4 on:** March 22, 2022, 13:08 »

The rate of rejection is crazy now.

zeljkok · « **Reply #5 on:** March 22, 2022, 13:20 »

Uncle Pete summarized it best. They have too many images and simply don't care. Just like SS Forum; allow commercial spam for months and then finally shut down because it was easier than moderate posts.

Contacting reviewers will do nothing. Uploads are filtered by AI, we can only guess criteria but I'd not be surprised if common themes i.e. Easter shots are automatically rejected.

You can spend hours trying to outsmart HAL 9000, maybe push some images through. High end gear, pro techniques - Tripod, Cable release, Focus stacking ... And then get 10 cents in return. Is it really worth time and effort?

SVH · « **Reply #6 on:** March 22, 2022, 13:28 »

I have mentioned it before but if you upload the rejected photos again they will have more succes at passing. But you might also wonder why you upload 40 photos of the same similar thing. Are they really unique from each other and do the differences serve a purpose?
But just try again, it's a hassle but it might just work to get them accepted anyway.

Unamas · « **Reply #7 on:** March 22, 2022, 13:29 »

Quote from: zeljkok on March 22, 2022, 13:20

High end gear, pro techniques - Tripod, Cable release, Focus stacking ... And then get 10 cents in return. Is it really worth time and effort?

How about investing money and time in underwater photography for 10 cents in return?
https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/underwater-photography-beginners-guide

angelacat · « **Reply #8 on:** March 22, 2022, 15:03 »

I'm getting animations rejected for noise - also post production technique although others accepted last week using exact same technique.

Very low sales and poor price on those sales at the moment.

I can't be bothered driving myself crazy trying to figure out the "magic" formula.

Jaggy · « **Reply #9 on:** March 22, 2022, 17:15 »

Quote from: zeljkok on March 22, 2022, 13:20

Uncle Pete summarized it best. They have too many images and simply don't care. Just like SS Forum; allow commercial spam for months and then finally shut down because it was easier than moderate posts.

Contacting reviewers will do nothing. Uploads are filtered by AI, we can only guess criteria but I'd not be surprised if common themes i.e. Easter shots are automatically rejected.

You can spend hours trying to outsmart HAL 9000, maybe push some images through. High end gear, pro techniques - Tripod, Cable release, Focus stacking ... And then get 10 cents in return. Is it really worth time and effort?

I don't just take shots for SS and I like to take the best ones I can. I also enjoy doing it. So, yes, it's worth the effort. But, maybe, I won't bother uploading to SS any more.

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 22, 2022, 20:33 »

Quote from: Jaggy on March 22, 2022, 11:59

I'm not sure it's worth uploading to SS any more

I'm sure - it isn't. I stopped uploading there when they changed the commissions in June 2020.

If you're getting rejections there and the images are OK and getting accepted elsewhere I would just resubmit until they pass, or just forget about it and move on. Definitely not worth worrying about it for 10 cents a download.

TonyD · « **Reply #11 on:** March 23, 2022, 00:10 »

Quote from: lonerunner on March 21, 2022, 18:13

Recently from last 2 batch of uploads Shutterstock rejected all of my photos with some various reasons. I don't know if they are dying, someone hate me at SS or they don't like Easter.

yes the same happened to me mainly for focus or noise (& they were editorial) because they can't be bothered to tick the real reason why they don't want then. yet I uploaded a photo which I knew had a problem: a raindrop on the lens showed up & was accepted. If the photo is a subject that's more likely to sell (how whould a machine know that?) then they accept it.

TonyD · « **Reply #12 on:** March 23, 2022, 00:25 »

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on March 22, 2022, 20:33

Quote from: Jaggy on March 22, 2022, 11:59
I'm not sure it's worth uploading to SS any more

I'm sure - it isn't. I stopped uploading there when they changed the commissions in June 2020.

If you're getting rejections there and the images are OK and getting accepted elsewhere I would just resubmit until they pass, or just forget about it and move on. Definitely not worth worrying about it for 10 cents a download.

When they lowered the amount in may 2020 I'd only been uploading photos to ss for 6 months. had I known that, I wouldn't have joined in the first place. I got to payout eventualy. I also uploaded to DT & alamy (and adobe sometimes) which are a joy to upload to but nowhere near the sales numbers as ss even thogh I have far more images on those. I wish the buyers would see sense leave ss.

Roscoe · « **Reply #13 on:** March 23, 2022, 01:57 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 22, 2022, 11:11

They have a Hal 9000 system doing reviews now.

This one genuinely made me laugh.

The topic of Shutterstock rejections has been discussed to death, and the general consensus is that it's ridiculous.
Some people still claim they have no rejections at all... well, they must have a magic trick.

Every now and then I keep trying because I feel like an image really has sales potential or it has sold on other platforms.
Had to upload my bestseller 3 times before it got accepted and now it is... well, my bestseller.

Another thing that seems to mitigate the problem is downsizing to 5MP.
At 10 cents per sale that's still 4MP too much.

All in all very time consuming, and for most of the images not worth the effort if you ask me.
Just fire and forget.

I found some old images last week from a vacation in Portugal in 2009. Shot with a Panasonic Lumix FX33 if I'm not mistaken.
They were bad. I mean the images. The vacation was great actually.
Snapshots with a point and shoot standard end consumer camera and looking at the images, it's clear that I had no idea of what I was doing.
But you know what? Screw it. I uploaded a few shots which I think are still half-useful. Even did some post-processing on those old dusty jpg's.
BAM. All accepted by Shutterstock's evil Hal 9000.

DiscreetDuck · « **Reply #14 on:** March 23, 2022, 05:07 »

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #15 on:** March 23, 2022, 10:36 »

I wasn't going to post this, but just for fun. Here's how to make a rejected focus photo into a passing photo. And I agree, for a dime, I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to please some computer. I used Irfanview. Open, resize, saved with a new name, uploaded again.

Not worth more time or worrying for 10 cents.

I didn't know that magic of better photos was so simple? Just use a faster shutter speed. over 50 years wasted trying to learn and understand exposure, and all I needed was a fast shutter speed?

Jaggy · « **Reply #16 on:** March 23, 2022, 10:51 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 23, 2022, 10:36

I wasn't going to post this, but just for fun. Here's how to make a rejected focus photo into a passing photo. And I agree, for a dime, I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to please some computer. I used Irfanview. Open, resize, saved with a new name, uploaded again.

Not worth more time or worrying for 10 cents.

I didn't know that magic of better photos was so simple? Just use a faster shutter speed. over 50 years wasted trying to learn and understand exposure, and all I needed was a fast shutter speed?

Do you resize the pixels or the Megabytes or both?

zeljkok · « **Reply #17 on:** March 23, 2022, 12:35 »

Quote from: Roscoe on March 23, 2022, 01:57

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 22, 2022, 11:11
They have a Hal 9000 system doing reviews now.
This one genuinely made me laugh.

I also thought Hal 9000 reference was brilliant. Younger generation might not get it though

Schadenfreude · « **Reply #18 on:** March 23, 2022, 12:57 »

"I also thought Hal 9000 reference was brilliant. Younger generation might not get it though"

I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a... fraid.

Unamas · « **Reply #19 on:** March 23, 2022, 13:31 »

Quote from: Roscoe on March 23, 2022, 01:57

I found some old images last week from a vacation in Portugal in 2009. Shot with a Panasonic Lumix FX33 if I'm not mistaken.
They were bad. I mean the images. The vacation was great actually.
Snapshots with a point and shoot standard end consumer camera and looking at the images, it's clear that I had no idea of what I was doing.
But you know what? Screw it. I uploaded a few shots which I think are still half-useful. Even did some post-processing on those old dusty jpg's.
BAM. All accepted by Shutterstock's evil Hal 9000.

Let me check my vacation photos

zeljkok · « **Reply #20 on:** March 23, 2022, 13:50 »

Quote from: Schadenfreude on March 23, 2022, 12:57

I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a... fraid.

Real question is: How to perform lobotomy on SS 9000?

Roscoe · « **Reply #21 on:** March 23, 2022, 14:36 »

Quote from: zeljkok on March 23, 2022, 13:50

Quote from: Schadenfreude on March 23, 2022, 12:57

I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a... fraid.

Real question is: How to perform lobotomy on SS 9000?

That would require quite a solar storm I guess. And that's not gonna happen.
So let's keep it realistic: How to mislead SS 9000? I would say: work with it and let it do it's dirty evil tricks: rejecting what it thinks to be perfectly fine images, and accepting what it thinks to be rubbish. Feed it great images, but downsize them to the minimum while going soft of the focus. Still perfectly usable for web publishing at 10 cents a pop.

Findura · « **Reply #22 on:** March 24, 2022, 05:24 »

In our country there is a saying : "When the goats are saturated, they start to grumble". The word "grumbling" is to be understood in the sense of dissatisfaction, displeasure, bad mood.
I think SS is "saturated." They've had enough, they don't want any more media. Maybe it's too much work for them? Maybe they only want to sell what has already been uploaded?

For many months SS has been rejecting about 95% of an uploaded series. I stopped uploading new media two months ago. Then I tried again a few days ago. But I have no chance anymore. Only 1 media from a series is sometimes accepted, but most of the time everything is rejected. The reason given is 'noise' which is not true and absurd.
I'm not uploading anything now, I'm sure SS doesn't want anything anymore.
I guess SS would prefer to close the gates and just spend time selling their stocked media.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #23 on:** March 24, 2022, 11:20 »

Quote from: Jaggy on March 23, 2022, 10:51

Do you resize the pixels or the Megabytes or both?

I didn't see the question before. Downsize the image, means less MB as a result. Even more absurd is, I open in Irfanview, resize, and save without doing anything else. That basic. And because you asked I generally save at 80% which is about 10 in Photoshop, but Irfanview still makes more compressed files.

If anyone is uploading to Wirestock they have added a new trick rejection: file is under 1 Megabyte. Some I need to open in Elements and save at 12... then they are acceptable.

I can see a soft image at full size, and I can see poor focus, at full size. For SS to reject images that are shot at 100 ISO, on a light stand, for focus, because there's some texture in the image, is plain stupid. The AI reviews don't know grass, leaves, water, fog, rain, or texture from just bad focus or poor exposures and noise. That's the problem. "Film Grain" "Pixelation" "Noise" that kind of thing.

Shallow depth of field, most of the time if it's in the front of the image or on the sides, is rejected for "focus"

Humans at Adobe, as a good example, can see and have working minds, and the same images will pass.

When they fail something, it's usually a flaw that I didn't see myself, before I uploaded. (usually stitching errors) On the other hand, some of those will pass at SSTK where AI isn't as smart.

zeljkok · « **Reply #24 on:** March 24, 2022, 13:26 »

Quote from: Findura on March 24, 2022, 05:24

In our country there is a saying : "When the goats are saturated, they start to grumble".

GettyGoats, DreamGoats and other MicroGoats are saturated too, but only in Shutter Barn they are biting the hand that feeds them. It is their barn and they have the right to choose if they want to be fed, or not. But we also have the right to choose which goats we are going to feed, and that is in my view the bottom line.

Interesting observation. Since I stopped feeding ShutterGoats, my downloads have remained constant but are now almost exclusively 10 cent subs, where as before it was a mix of Subs, ODD, SOD and occasional EL. Is this related? Don't think so but this month DreamGoats and ShutterGoats are in tight race for bottom place which was unthinkable just 6 months ago.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: What's with SS rejecting all photos while others accepted them all (Read 4349 times)

lonerunner

Uncle Pete

Jaggy

Firn

Unamas

zeljkok

SVH

Unamas

angelacat

Jaggy

sgoodwin4813

TonyD

TonyD

Roscoe

DiscreetDuck

Uncle Pete

Jaggy

zeljkok

Schadenfreude

Unamas

zeljkok

Roscoe

Findura

Uncle Pete

zeljkok

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors