Quote from: Anja02 on June 09, 2014, 05:26

Ok, here is a perfect example. Go to the Shutterstock main home page, scroll down a bit and click on the Photos tab. On the left hand side there is a very nice photo of asparagus.

Now, I dare anyone to try to duplicate that photo and get it passed the SS reviewers now.   I can almost guarantee that it will be refused for a) poor lighting (shadows) and/or b) cropping.

Something happened to the review system a few months ago. What used to go though approved before, will more than likely be rejected now. Everything is taken too literally. That sweet little asparagus photo would not exist there today, if left up to the current review system.

I think it would Anja

Kati Molin is one of the best food photographers on SS (and elsewhere).

I have been following her for years - in a purely professional capacity of course

I think she was once the featured photographer on Shutterstock too, in fact, if I remember correctly it was after reading her interview/bio on SS I 'checked her out' and clicked on follow, and that was about three years ago.

However, back on topic, I understand what you're saying. Images that 'push the envelope' do run the risk of being rejected for lighting issues, but there again, they always have done.

In the past, generally, even in those specific cases, they could get through because the reviewer would hopefully appreciate the aesthetic quality of an image, and commercial value. That might well have changed now.

But, your point is well taken and possibly true, I just doubt it would would apply to Kati Molin's stuff that's all.

Edit: I just checked her recent stuff on SS (although I'm a follower I am a little tardy in checking every week) her new stuff is a great example of 'pushing that envelope'. Lovely use of light and (extreme) shallow DOF. She knows what she's doing and clearly is getting the stuff accepted.

There again, of course we don't know how much is thrown back at her from reviewers, but judging what they have passed (recently) it's all looking good

i dont have rejected images, 99% acceptance,  i upload every day 2-3 images, maybe i have one image rejected every 14 days.
[�]
3. check whole image for noise, every pixel
[�]

The work you some guys are putting in for pennies is just overkill. Send them images worthy of 38 cents. Not images worthy of 38 dollar. Snapshots are the way forward. If you want to be rewarded and feel appreciated as an artist submit to other image banks other then microstock.

I think many times perfectly fine and technically correct images are rejected just "because SS doesn't want those type or style of images."

So many of the contributors see these random rejections that, frankly are wrong (rejected for out of focus when the images are technically superior in focus and clarity to many of the images in the current library), but the REAL reason for rejection is SS just doesn't want THOSE images.

FT does this all the time, and if you ask anyone around here they will tell you that is just what FT does because they don't want any landscape images, or whatever type of images don't fit their CURRENT needs.

The problem is contributors spend time capturing and processing images to the best of their abilities, paying careful attention to issues of noise, focus and color balance only to have that plate of cookies rejected for something like "focus issues" when in reality SS just doesn't think they need any more images of a plate of cookies (landscapes, cookies, or whatever random image fits the bill at the time.)

I think (just my opinion) that the "kind" of images SS wants right now is highly produced "typical" stock images, the kind Yuri Arcurs used to provide. Images with a lot of production, technically complex lighting setups, models, makeup artists, full-on high production "lifestyle" type of stuff. That is the kind of stuff that will maintain the "photo buyer" income levels that the upper management is looking to "sell" to the CEO and stockholders.

As much as Yuri tried to turn microstock into a business, which required a staff and paid models, and over time turned into a full-blown enterprise, most of us small time contributors can't compete on that scale, nor can we produce images with that "style" in a cost-effective manner.

So, (again just my opinion) as time marches on microstock needs to be more and more like stock photography used to be in the old days. Where the stock houses told the photographers what kinds of images to shoot and worked in partnership with a broad spectrum of photographers.

The higher ups at SS still want to work off the whole "crowd source" model, they just want to dictate what the "crowd" provides, and that just doesn't work [period].