Author Topic: Are you experiencing MASS REJECTIONS? (Read 48133 times)

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #100 on:** July 07, 2011, 11:04 »

Thanks. I've had rejections for composition (cropping). I'm not really a food photographer. It's just something that is readily available ... and my wife is very artistic (presentation). We have to eat. Why not use the food as a prop?

Also, I'm cheap. Won't spend much money on stock until I see some income.

stockastic · « **Reply #101 on:** July 07, 2011, 19:37 »

I think the winning formula would be food on a dirt bike.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #102 on:** July 08, 2011, 09:38 »

Mr Korn Flakes · « **Reply #103 on:** July 08, 2011, 09:55 »

Quote from: Mr Korn Flakes on July 06, 2011, 03:35

Since weeks I'm getting a lot of rejections from SS and I can't understand what's wrong with my photos; others sites are accepting them, so I'm really confused (and frustrated too!).
These are my last 3 rejections:

http://us.fotolia.com/id/33573146 Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.
http://us.fotolia.com/id/33573231 Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.
http://us.fotolia.com/id/33573102 Focus--Your image is not in focus or focus is not located where we feel it works best.

This file, with similar lighting and WB, has been accepted http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=80245342

I've added more light to the shadow areas and finally SS has accepted one of those photos: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=80613217
However the've rejected the blue picture because they think it's too similar to the one thy've accepted.

Slovenian · « **Reply #104 on:** July 08, 2011, 11:18 »

It's a shame, I like 'em all. They are definitely not mainstream and stand out on SS

Perry · « **Reply #105 on:** July 08, 2011, 14:13 »

I'm really getting pissed here... I have submitted some scans from old magazines (that are clearly in public domain because they are printed in the 1860s).
They seem to reject everything with always different reasons. If I correct my submission according to them, they get rejected for some other reason.

-> submit with information about the source in the description -> OK, I'll try to cram that in 200 characters somehow, I have to leave out much of the information what the image is about -> submit as editorial with editorial caption -> OK, I need to cram the information in 200 characters again, the description is getting ridiculous! -> not newsworthy -> Trying to resubmit non-editorial -> need to include property release (oh, but anybody doesn't "own" the source material any more!) ->

I'm really getting bored and sad. I have some PD images accepted and some of them are selling fine, but I can't seem to get any new ones online. If they don't want any more of such images, they should say so (and maybe throw away all old engravings and such).

If they want public domain images, they should have a tick box or a pipeline or something that someone with knowledge would look at the images.

qwerty · « **Reply #106 on:** July 09, 2011, 04:54 »

last 50 photos submitted to shutterstock 54% accepted
last 50 photos submitted to bigstock 80% accepted

Interestingly out of the rejected photos at bigstock (10 of them) 5 of them were accepted at shutterstock.

My conclusion things have changed at shutterstock.

If they have a problem with the size of the collection just delete anything that hasn't sold in 3 years, you'd probably knock a couple of million photos out of the collection.

With the above stats I vote for a bridge from bigstock to shutterstock

Tempusfugit · « **Reply #107 on:** July 09, 2011, 12:31 »

Slovenian · « **Reply #108 on:** July 09, 2011, 14:57 »

^^That's no measure for inconsistency, it could just be that you're clueless

Mantis · « **Reply #109 on:** July 09, 2011, 20:21 »

Quote from: Tempusfugit on July 09, 2011, 12:31

submitting to SS = gambling, as one user said...
Most inconsistent reviewing process ever!!! I get approvals on images I was sure were going to be rejected and images that I consider good stock are rejected

I happen to agree with you. Not just based on my experience but from feedback of other submitters who are more than average names.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #110 on:** July 10, 2011, 02:58 »

I've come to the conclusion that the rejection reasons given are irrelevant. It now seems to be up to reviewers to decide whether or not they feel the collection would benefit from having something. If they think so, it gets accepted, if not, they hit a random rejection button.

Of course, some rejections will be for the given reason, but once something is good enough in technical terms, it then runs into the "do we want it" layer of reviewing.

DT's "too many of the same thing" when you have three completely different views of a subject may be irritating (and stupid) but at least you know what is happening.

heywoody · « **Reply #111 on:** July 10, 2011, 14:37 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 10, 2011, 02:58

I've come to the conclusion that the rejection reasons given are irrelevant. It now seems to be up to reviewers to decide whether or not they feel the collection would benefit from having something. If they think so, it gets accepted, if not, they hit a random rejection button.

Of course, some rejections will be for the given reason, but once something is good enough in technical terms, it then runs into the "do we want it" layer of reviewing.

DT's "too many of the same thing" when you have three completely different views of a subject may be irritating (and stupid) but at least you know what is happening.

I'm not doing this long and it's only a hobby but what you say is pretty obviously what's happening. I suspect reviewers have giidelines to work to and this is company policy - still has to be some room for personal judgement within these guidelines which explains why there is a degree of inconsistency.

Mantis · « **Reply #112 on:** July 10, 2011, 19:58 »

Quote from: heywoody on July 10, 2011, 14:37

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 10, 2011, 02:58
I've come to the conclusion that the rejection reasons given are irrelevant. It now seems to be up to reviewers to decide whether or not they feel the collection would benefit from having something. If they think so, it gets accepted, if not, they hit a random rejection button.

Of course, some rejections will be for the given reason, but once something is good enough in technical terms, it then runs into the "do we want it" layer of reviewing.

DT's "too many of the same thing" when you have three completely different views of a subject may be irritating (and stupid) but at least you know what is happening.

I'm not doing this long and it's only a hobby but what you say is pretty obviously what's happening. I suspect reviewers have giidelines to work to and this is company policy - still has to be some room for personal judgement within these guidelines which explains why there is a degree of inconsistency.

There's not a lot of traction in your statement. In the case of SS there's blatant misuse of the rejection button...no guidelines, no public policy and a lot of personal judgement that's completely unwarranted. Anthony Correa of Shutterstock should be:

1. Ashamed of the "law" he's created
2. Quit if these random crap rejections are being shoved onto him

Having perfectly good images, marketable, and high quality are overrun by we "want to create the illusion that we are hard on image submissions so we can attract more buyers" when in reality it is a disservice to the buyers and photographers.

heywoody · « **Reply #113 on:** July 11, 2011, 03:30 »

There's only a lack of traction if you ignore or don't want to see the evidence - anyway you seem to be agreeing with me (except I'm not taking any moral stance, just recognising facts)

takestock · « **Reply #114 on:** July 11, 2011, 04:02 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 10, 2011, 02:58

I've come to the conclusion that the rejection reasons given are irrelevant. It now seems to be up to reviewers to decide whether or not they feel the collection would benefit from having something. If they think so, it gets accepted, if not, they hit a random rejection button.

Of course, some rejections will be for the given reason, but once something is good enough in technical terms, it then runs into the "do we want it" layer of reviewing.

DT's "too many of the same thing" when you have three completely different views of a subject may be irritating (and stupid) but at least you know what is happening.

I tend to agree with you on this.
Even being rejected for focus when it appears technically OK.

lthn · « **Reply #115 on:** July 11, 2011, 05:30 »

Quote from: stockastic on July 07, 2011, 19:37

I think the winning formula would be food on a dirt bike.

maybe a baby seal eating strawberries with whipped cream, next to a bikini model holding a credit card and a laptop... all in the middle of a tulip field.

etienjones · « **Reply #116 on:** July 11, 2011, 05:53 »

Or the Poetic image from Comte de Lautreamont (1846-1870), which is at the foundation of Dada and Surrealism.

"chance meeting on a dissecting-table of a sewing-machine and an umbrella."

we are slipping off subject into the bizarre . . . . .

luissantos84 · « **Reply #117 on:** July 11, 2011, 06:18 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 10, 2011, 02:58

I've come to the conclusion that the rejection reasons given are irrelevant. It now seems to be up to reviewers to decide whether or not they feel the collection would benefit from having something. If they think so, it gets accepted, if not, they hit a random rejection button.

Of course, some rejections will be for the given reason, but once something is good enough in technical terms, it then runs into the "do we want it" layer of reviewing.

DT's "too many of the same thing" when you have three completely different views of a subject may be irritating (and stupid) but at least you know what is happening.

you have just missed the "favorites" because every agency has their HONEYS!

Shank_ali · « **Reply #118 on:** July 11, 2011, 12:51 »

Perhaps the company has been too lenient in the past on quality.It has a huge library now and if it continued accepting the majority of content submitted by its contributors the quality would be diluted.
If as the majority in this thread suspect,the inspection has got harder,i would except the new standard,learn it and match it .Simple.

PedroV · « **Reply #119 on:** July 11, 2011, 13:33 »

something goes wrong

Mantis · « **Reply #120 on:** July 11, 2011, 16:11 »

Quote from: shank_ali on July 11, 2011, 12:51

Perhaps the company has been too lenient in the past on quality.It has a huge library now and if it continued accepting the majority of content submitted by its contributors the quality would be diluted.
If as the majority in this thread suspect,the inspection has got harder,i would except the new standard,learn it and match it .Simple.

Good luck in that. We don't know what the standard is and seeing some of the rejects the top echelon gets smells of SS incompetence. There is no pattern other than random. We've asked over and over again for Anthony to define some kind of standard so we can comply and upload to those standards. They come out and say to "just shoot better stuff". What the Fk is up with that? They must be taking lessons from Istock.

Shank_ali · « **Reply #121 on:** July 11, 2011, 16:20 »

Quote from: Mantis on July 11, 2011, 16:11

Quote from: shank_ali on July 11, 2011, 12:51
Perhaps the company has been too lenient in the past on quality.It has a huge library now and if it continued accepting the majority of content submitted by its contributors the quality would be diluted.
If as the majority in this thread suspect,the inspection has got harder,i would except the new standard,learn it and match it .Simple.

Good luck in that. We don't know what the standard is and seeing some of the rejects the top echelon gets smells of SS incompetence. There is no pattern other than random. We've asked over and over again for Anthony to define some kind of standard so we can comply and upload to those standards. They come out and say to "just shoot better stuff". What the Fk is up with that? They must be taking lessons from Istock.

Who is Anthony?
Please dont bring another agent into the debate.Thanks

heywoody · « **Reply #122 on:** July 11, 2011, 17:33 »

Guys, guys, guys, Baldrick is right. SS don’t want BETTER stuff they want DIFFERENT stuff and they don’t give a crap whether you are “top echelon” or not. They are not anything like IS who don’t care what kind of boring crap is submitted as long as it’s TECHNICALLY good. Different won’t sell as well as mainstream for the contributor but it’s additional sales from the point of view of the business.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #123 on:** July 11, 2011, 17:51 »

deleted

Slovenian · « **Reply #124 on:** July 11, 2011, 17:55 »

mess, double post. Sorry;)

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Are you experiencing MASS REJECTIONS? (Read 48133 times)

WarrenPrice

stockastic

WarrenPrice

Mr Korn Flakes

Slovenian

Perry

qwerty

Tempusfugit

Slovenian

Mantis

BaldricksTrousers

heywoody

Mantis

heywoody

takestock

lthn

etienjones

luissantos84

Shank_ali

PedroV

Mantis

Shank_ali

heywoody

WarrenPrice

Slovenian

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors