Jump to content

John Huntington

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About John Huntington

  • Rank
  1. Well this isn't a landscape shot, I was shooting in the in the middle of 42nd street dodging cars so I didn't have much time to compose the photo. This is the kind of shot I like to do. It's pretty sharp given the circumstances. and in my searching they don't seem to have anything else like this. And, it's an editorial shot which would likely run at 300 pixels wide or something. But I've had much "softer" shots accepted before, and there seems to be no objective measure which is what I object to, and no way to clarify anything other than people commenting on the forum who are not the actual reviewers. But in the end I think I'm done with Shutterstock, why go through all this aggravation for 10 cents? John
  2. I gave up on Shutterstock a couple years ago because I felt like the review process was arbitrary and extremely frustrating. I just tried again, and now, while the review process is faster, I find the rejections just as frustrating. I shot some photos of empty Times Square the other week, just about every single photo was rejected for "focus". I resubmitted and they tagged on "noise" on top of focus for some, and just rejected others again for focus. I shot the attached rejected photo on a tripod at F16 and ISO 200. I'm attaching also a 1:1 zoom of the distant parts of the photo. This photo is out of focus? I mean it's a long exposure so some people walking are blurry, and it's at night in a crazy lighting environment so it really can not be tack sharp like a studio product shot. Also, while I was away they removed the ability to comment to the reviewers? Why? I'm a storm chaser and when I was here before I would often get rejected for things like "color temperature" problems on lightning photos and so on. What is the "correct" color temperature if you have lightning and low pressure sodium streetlights in the same frame? I just got a bunch of storm photos of a severe storm approaching Manhattan rejected for being "blurry". CLOUDS ARE BLURRY! And the few storm photos over the years that have snuck through the review have been my biggest sellers (lifetime earnings around $1000), even though many have had "focus" or "noise" issues. How am I supposed to sell anything through this channel if they won't let it in? In the meantime, I have sold directly some of those exact same rejected photos to a major weather calendar sold in stores like Target. If they don't like a photo, or don't want it, that's fine. But I feel like I've had so many compelling images rejected for reasons I don't understand. Meanwhile, images I shot the other day of a protest were accepted and sold in the same day. And with the new royalty structure I got 10 cents. Why exactly am I bothering? John www.johnhuntington.photography
  3. Oh yeah, I read that when it came out, but I still don't see anything in there that says they are less stringent on editorial images. Again, my only complaint is the lack of transparency. It's also that we are not the customers, and we are pretty much expendable to SS, so why should they make any effort to retain people? Right, I said hundreds >or< thousands :-) Which you have.... Thanks! And I checked out yours too; very nice stuff. But I see what you mean about focusing on the commercial aspect. For me, this is a sideline, a way to try to make some money off stuff I would shoot anyway. It's a niche market for some of my stuff, which is fine with me. Again if Shutterstock doesn't want niche market stuff, that's fine with me, but just tell me that instead of saying an image of a thunderstorm has "poor lighting". Especially when they previously approved dozens of my storm images shot before I even owned a full frame camera. Oh absolutely, and that's fine with me. Many of my editorial images (especially from hurricane Sandy) have sold some time after the event (usually a few months in advance of the anniversary of the event). Thanks for spending so much time discussing this with me, it's been fascinating! I guess I'm going to try another stock company (Alamy, most likely) and see if I find their submission process as frustrating. Most of all, though, I wish SS would just open up about their process more and I'd be happy to stay here. John p.s. Many of my favorite images were rejected by SS (or are not appropriate for stock) but I just put them online via Smugmug:
  4. Interesting, thanks for that info. Where is that stated? I don't see it here: https://submit.shutterstock.com/guidelines.mhtml. Oh I'm sure they are identified internally, I'm saying that information should be shared with contributors. I would just say "Reviewer 123 rejected your images for the following reasons". If they were "already aware" of the mistake, I'd like to have seen them retro-actively approve them. Interesting, thanks for that perspective. I was pretty dejected late last year when I had a whole batch denied (the same batch later accepted). When you put your heart and soul into photography it's hard not to take it personally, so consistency and openness is all I can ask from them. Thanks! And they just sold one of my editorial images today. Another 84 cents for me. It seems the only way to make any money would be to have hundreds or thousands of approved images, and it's awfully hard to get there when there's effectively a random barrier to approval. John
  5. I guess this is the crux of the matter for me. If reviewer variability is the sole cause of whole batch rejections of work by competent photographers that is similar in quality to what was accepted previously, then SS is doing a truly horrendous job of training and they need to try harder. It's not fair to contributors. Aesthetics, of course, is subjective. But the rejections I was complaining about have been based (supposedly) on objective criteria. Either my image is in focus or not. I'd be perfectly fine if they told me they don't like my image or need it or it won't sell, but don't tell me the white balance isn't correct when it is. Daylight degrees K is an objectively measurable thing. Also, they have accepted nearly every editorial image I've submitted, including some that actually do have technical problems (like focus) and I expected to be rejected. Either they have criteria for focus or they don't. Maybe they're trying to build their editorial library so they have looser standards? That's fine, what I'm complaining about is that none of this should be a mystery--just tell us. At the very least they could give the reviewers a unique ID number and put that in the rejections. If this is going to be a game, then level the playing field and make it fair. If we see on the forum 20 block rejections from reviewer 123 then we can identify it and just know we got a bad reviewer and we need to try again and hope for a different one. As for submitting my images for critique by the forum, what's the point? As I said I had images rejected, and then I resubmitted the same images they were later accepted. I know I will be replaced so they don't care, but right now I'm only selling microstock on Shutterstock, and unless something changes I'm not submitting anything else. I'm not wasting my time playing a game with secret rules set by someone else. John
  6. I've had it. I've got over a hundred active images accepted, so I must be able to shoot photos up to Shutterstock's standards. But lately submitting has just been a total crap shoot. I had a bunch of stuff rejected in December, so after reading here about things getting crazy at the end of the year I just tweaked all the highlights of the rejected photos a 1/3 of stop up or down randomly just so the file would be legitimately different, and they accepted most of them. So there's something going on that they are not telling us about. With that success, I submitted another round of new photos, and then my "submit images" area froze (on their system, not mine) and it took them two weeks to fix it. And then, when I finally was able to submit they bounced everything within 24 hours with same old crap: "poor focus", "incorrect white balance", etc. These are technical issues that simply were not true. And it's not just me, another friend who used to make a fair amount of money on Shutterstock just got 100% rejected on like 30 images, again for bogus technical reasons. It's fine if they have two many images, or mine don't have commercial value, or whatever. But they need to be honest about what's going on and stop rejecting for reasons that simply are not true. It's to the point now that it's just not even worth my time to clean up and tag stuff because it just seems like a total crap shoot if they will accept it or not. Maybe that's SS's objective? If so, they should tell us. Just be honest, shutterstock. I know someone from the company monitors these forums and they need to be honest and tell us what's really going on. Why the hell should it be a guessing game? I won't likely submit anything else; my only question now is do I take it all down in protest or leave everything up there to continue making 29 cents a day. John (end rant!)
  7. Technical support is still working on this, but no progress yet. John
  8. I uploaded a bunch of photos, and then went to try and submit them and I got a very weird problem where most of the controls in the submit window don't work. Also, keywords are not suggested, and "Save" and "Submit" don't work. I figured it was a browser problem, so I tried another, and had the same problem. I rebooted, same problem. I reuploaded the photos, same problem, although now there are two copies of each photo, and I can't delete any of them.. I went to my laptop, and same problem. I submitted a technical support request and haven't heard anything back. Here's a little video of the problem first in Firefox and then in Chrome. You can't tell, but I'm clicking on every button in the screen. Anyone have any ideas how to get out of this? Thanks! John Huntington
  9. I took most of the images that were rejected late last year, and resubmitted them in several different batches, and they accepted every single one of them. I wish Shuterstock would just instead say, "We have too many of this kind of image right now" or something rather than reject for technical/composition reasons that aren't really true. And again they accepted every single new editorial shot, even some I thought were marginal. John
  10. Thanks for this information--I had no idea they had some sort of quota system by year. I just got rejected for 24/25 or so images for "Poor lighting" for things like thunderstorms, which by their nature are dramatic (I've had lots of other thunderstorm shots accepted). Interestingly, they accepted 100% of my editorial shots, several of which were multiple versions of the same scene.
  • Create New...