MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What's with SS rejecting all photos while others accepted them all  (Read 4351 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: March 24, 2022, 15:02 »
0
Will be interesting to see the next quarters if they are winning or loosing customers. We will surely know by their stock price. Last months it has fallen down.

Their margins cannot be trimmed more. Well, yes, if they pay 0.03 for download. I am sure many would be still uploading. Heck I think if they would make contributors pay 0.01$ per upload there would be people uploading too  :D


« Reply #26 on: March 24, 2022, 17:09 »
0
Adobe just sold 2 photos that were rejects last week by SS for
Quote
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).

zeljkok

  • Non Linear Existence
« Reply #27 on: March 24, 2022, 21:41 »
+1

Their margins cannot be trimmed more. Well, yes, if they pay 0.03 for download. I am sure many would be still uploading. Heck I think if they would make contributors pay 0.01$ per upload there would be people uploading too  :D

Yes, and this is big part of reason why they could get away with "10 cent restructuring". But we don't have full picture - there might be 'big cats' (studios, with 100s of 1000s of images) with special deals, search rank  promotions etc.  Small operators, like most of us here, are not important for the business and thus getting extinct

Mat came here the other day and posted about Adobe rejection criteria related to color saturation, "less is more" etc.  Why can't someone from SS come here and post "look guys this is why you are getting rejections.  We are looking for ..."  But no, they couldn't be bothered, just like they couldn't be bothered to maintain Forum etc etc

I am not SS hater, actually think many things in their contributor facing portal are still best in business.  But disrespectful treatment of contributors which are the backbone of whole business has gone over the top

« Reply #28 on: March 25, 2022, 02:29 »
+1
I fully agree on that. There are many dubious agencies out there. But the most disrespectful of all goes without any doubt to this one.


I am not SS hater, actually think many things in their contributor facing portal are still best in business.  But disrespectful treatment of contributors which are the backbone of whole business has gone over the top

« Reply #29 on: March 27, 2022, 12:11 »
+2

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.  ::)...

yes unfortunately, that doesnt work for my illustrations

it's the stupidest rejection around (w lots of competition). no major agency has such a silly 1MB requirement -- they say they' are responding to their channels yet refuse to say what those channels are even after i sent them the MP reqs for SS,AS, et al

« Reply #30 on: March 28, 2022, 03:42 »
0
I have made 100 sales this month on Shutterstock but have also had nearly all photos rejected for the same stupid reasons and yes the other sites accepted them. This has been going on for some time now but every now and then I get a whole batch accepted.
I refuse to resubmit to Shutterstock we get paid peanuts as it is, why waste the time, energy and data. One day I will probably not even bother to submit to them at all.

« Reply #31 on: March 29, 2022, 06:33 »
0
The rate of rejection is crazy now.

Not with me. Currently, over 90% of my submissions are getting approved with no problem. The last rejection I had was for a nonsensical caption issue, which then got accepted when it was resubmitted.

« Reply #32 on: March 30, 2022, 05:45 »
0
Fast reviews seem to be back?
Uploaded a bunch of images today, all of them reviewed and accepted within the hour!
Enjoy it while it lasts!

« Reply #33 on: March 30, 2022, 12:29 »
+1
Fast reviews seem to be back?
and fast rejections :)

« Reply #34 on: March 30, 2022, 15:08 »
0
Fast reviews seem to be back?
and fast rejections :)
Same for me, faster rejections., real progress  ;)

« Reply #35 on: April 09, 2022, 11:13 »
0
Here's how to be accepted. From SS, Heres a tip to stand outinclude a mix of diverse ethnicities, genders, ages, abilities, and body types, as well as LGBTQ+ and non-binary people. Content with recognizable faces must also include model releases, as well as property releases for recognizable locations.
They really push this down our throats don't they?

« Reply #36 on: April 09, 2022, 19:20 »
0
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.

Yep I can get 10yr old photos with a cheap olympus P&S camera accepted but only if processed & downsized to 4-5mp. yet SS's stupid machine often rejects my high quality sony mirrorless camera shots (even if downsized) 
I filed a complaint but the person who replies doesn't even work for SS & did nothing except send a standard reply. They don't even check the photos to see if review was wrong anymore. I did the same with adobe & they accepted a photo that was rejected and it ended up selling. These agencies should start trusting contributors more like alamy does.

« Reply #37 on: April 09, 2022, 19:36 »
+1
Will be interesting to see the next quarters if they are winning or loosing customers. We will surely know by their stock price. Last months it has fallen down.

Their margins cannot be trimmed more. Well, yes, if they pay 0.03 for download. I am sure many would be still uploading. Heck I think if they would make contributors pay 0.01$ per upload there would be people uploading too  :D
These people who still upload even for these tiny amounts which happen on some other sites are wasting their time, energy & data. I just don't understand why they do it even if they come from a third world country. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3632 Views
Last post January 06, 2011, 01:37
by chrisroll
4 Replies
3277 Views
Last post July 14, 2013, 23:25
by Dragonfly
12 Replies
5928 Views
Last post April 22, 2014, 14:20
by helloitsme
36 Replies
10637 Views
Last post December 08, 2019, 08:21
by trabuco
6 Replies
3726 Views
Last post October 29, 2021, 14:13
by SVH

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle