Jump to content

Neil Stanners

Members
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Neil Stanners

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Tried uploading vector eps files to Shutterstock for the first time. (All files that have successfully uploaded elsewhere.) One went through and the rest didn't. Any thoughts on why this might be happening with Shutterstock?
  2. I gave up contributing to Shutterstock when they dropped their payments to 10cents a sale. If I'd have to sell 1000 images to make $100 I decided to concentrate on other sites where the returns are a lot better. Has the situation changed or is it still 10cents a sale?
  3. An example would be a long laneway. Most of the image is in focus and sharp but the distant end of the laneway is not. To me that is acceptable and in fact artistically preferable. Also pretty hard to do any other way without a massive D of F. I suspect the SS robot reviewer just does a scan of the image, finds a section that it reads as 'not sharp' and rejects the image as out of focus.
  4. Lot of great feedback. Thanks to all. I've now reached the stage where I just find the complete non-sensical randomness of the Shutterstock robot image checker quite amusing. Shots I think are great are rejected while others I have doubts about are accepted. There is a pattern to the randomness though. Anything that has a sharply in-focus foreground will be rejected as 'out of focus'. 'Noise and grain' (which I thought went out with film cameras) is a sort of random fallback even in a series of like shots. Intellectual property seems completely random as does property release criteria. Similarity is used in shots that are only vaguely alike. (While the SS library is riddled with whole pages of pretty much identical images.) The ultimate stupid rejection for me so far was a nice pic of a beautiful completely empty beach. Rejected because I hadn't supplied a 'model release'. The SS robot checker might be efficient and speed things up but I suspect SS miss out on a lot of great potential content because of it. Anyway, I'll keeping playing the game.
  5. Fair point. Though those images you mention have actually sold quite well elsewhere. Textures are worth pursuing. Strangely some of the effect pics that became 'illustration without a reference' were texture backgrounds. And those street signs were obviously images with effects but they went straight through. Guess I'll just stick to conventional photography for SS.
  6. Hi Jane Yep, I tried the 'no reference pic' option. Still got rejected. I believe SS use some sort of AI system so possibly I'm just not getting past the autocheck/reject part of their algorithm. Neil
  7. Hi Jane I guess that is an option although it seems a lot of unnecessary work when no other stock site has these requirements. Also it doesn't help me with the hundred or more images I already have with this effect. Neil
  8. Thanks for all the feedback. I guess all stock agencies have their odd behaviour and strange rules. I get that sequences can greatly add to the stock libraries volume and so they reject quite a few but as a person who worked in advertising and marketing and so purchased a lot of stock shots I can tell you there were a heap of times where a shot was almost what I wanted if only ...... Quite often the next shot in the sequence would have been the one I wanted but it wasn't there. The strange SS rule about altered images being shunted off into the 'illustration' dept has got me beaten. I use an-camera technique to produce an interesting and (I think) really useable line illustration effect. Because the whole process takes place in the camera there is no 'reference' shot. I've queried this problem with SS and the answer is "no reference shot then bad luck". Shots of any outdoor area seems to be a complete lottery with all stock agencies. And what is considered focus is another vague area. Often the short depth of field is done for creative reasons and the point is entirely missed. So I'll be a bit smarter with what I upload, how I present it and what metadata I use.
  9. Thanks Sheila. Seems my paranoia is unfounded. The randomness is completely random. I'll carry on and try to work in and around the system. (Impressive portfolio btw.)
  10. Seems nobody is interested in giving an opinion. Anyway, I think I may have stumbled on the Shutterstock review technique. Have uploaded a number of batches of images recently which were shot at the same time under the same conditions. Half are always rejected. 'Focus' seems to be the main standby for rejection. How can half a range of images all shot under the same conditions with the same camera at the same time, with a high speed and good depth of field be half okay? Of course it's possible, just highly unlikely. Maybe it's a way of not accepting too many images from any one contributor. Or perhaps a way of making sure contributors don't get too sure of themselves. I guess the regular Shutterstock contributors eventually figure out how the game works.
  11. I am not new to stock photography. I've been a contributor to about three other sites for a many years. Sites that have quite high standards. My images sell okay. I decided to try Shutterstock. As with any new stock site I have been initially uploading images that are already available through the other sites. It is a way of testing the water to see what reaction I get for images that have been readily accepted elsewhere. The assumption is that they will pass review without issue. Quite the opposite is happening with my submissions to Shutterstock. Only a small percentage are getting through. Most rejections are not image quality issues but quite odd reasons that seem illogical. If a series of related sequential shots are uploaded they will pick one or two thus destroying the sequence, if an altered image is presented it will 'sometimes' be deemed an illustration then when uploaded as an illustration it will be required to have a reference shot, when obviously non-copyright public area images are sent they require a property release and so on. When a shot which has a distant part of the image beyond focus for obvious creative reasons is deemed out of focus. The list goes on. I would not raise this matter except that all these images have passed muster with several other sites. I have a background in photography. I use high end gear and lenses. My question is to other Shutterstock contributors. I don't get the impression that Shutterstock overall have insanely high standards so have you had a similar experience? Is Shutterstock just more difficult to deal with? Do you find the reviewers irrational compared to other stock sites? Is it worth continuing with Shutterstock or should I just walk away and stick to my other sites? I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of other contributors.
×
×
  • Create New...