Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'editorial'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Shutterstock
    • Forum Guidelines
    • Announcements
    • Contributor Experience
    • Show and Tell
    • Technical Issues
    • Hardware & Gear
    • Archive
    • Critique Forum

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Twitter


Instagram


Facebook


LinkedIn


Location


Interests

Found 124 results

  1. I like Steve McCurry's work. But after this my trust for his image have dimmed slightly http://petapixel.com/2016/05/06/botched-steve-mccurry-print-leads-photoshop-scandal/
  2. Have just had several video clips of Barcelona rejected which I had marked as editorial without realising there is a specific format for editorial captions. Have now seen the required format. Looking for advice here, my clips of Barcelona are of different city scenes some with and some without people. I do not have model or property releases. Can I still submit these as non-editorial without having any releases? I did a search for other Barcelona footage, some had editorial use only whilst other clips did not have editorial use but also did not have model or property releases. In other words can generic travel scenes in cities be sold without releases commercially? Thanks. Howard
  3. Hello, My name is Brittney. I just joined Shutterstock and I have a ton of photos from various red carpet or celebrity type events that I shot I would like to submit. But I'm still a confused and unsure of the Editorial guidelines because most were taken before I joined and I don't have releases. What can I do or is it just a lost cause?
  4. Jon just posted on FB about the new deal with the AP which is gonna add 30 million more images to the ever growing library, which will bring us to almost 110 million images. Hope it helps us here at SS with getting more editorial coverage being granted for those of us here who do editorial. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e0a2cfee-e5f5-11e5-ac45-5c039e797d1c.html
  5. I get really frustrated with some of the reviewers apparent lack of any sense of what editorial images may sell. I generally have an almost 100% approval rating for my submissions but occasionally get some really stupid rejections. The attached image of pop star Miley Cyrus at the MTV Video Music Awards would certainly be considered very saleable, yet it got a rejection for "Composition--Image is poorly composed and/or poorly cropped." Maybe the reviewer needs new glasses! ;-)
  6. Recently I complained to SS one of their reviewers had absolutely no idea what they were doing, and rejecting a big batch of my clips, because I did not have Credentials - it was video footage of a Grand Mosque. SS sent me a message saying yes, the reviewer did make a mistake, and I could simply upload all the clips again. I said NO. I was not going to waste my time and money going through all this again due to a staff member who has absolutely no idea what they were doing! Guess what? I have just had another useless reviewer waste all my time and electricity / internet expenses once again! The reviewer just rejected 60 odd clips blaming they needed editorial captions! Two things, firstly I was told a long time ago from Judith at SS: Going forward, editorial captions no longer require newsworthy "factoids". Editorial captions should simply provide the location, the date, and an accurate description of what is depicted. OK, and this is a caption I had with one of my rejected clips - Newbury town center, UK. Newbury was founded late in the eleventh century following the Norman invasion as a new borough, hence its name. It is one of the oldest market towns in England. May 2013 So why on earth did I receive a message from a SS reviewer - 14722672 - Editorial caption required. See here:Â http://shutr.bz/1hYjXSK SS should change the rejection process - Once they reject, they press the delete button, all clips gone for good. Instead, have a chance for a contributor to contact SS to explain why they believe the reviewer is in the wrong. Surely this is easy enough. One week from the time the clips are rejected, you can delete the clips for good if a second opinion has been made from a supervisor who has more reviewing experiences. I hope someone at SS will take my complaint seriously? I for one is very reluctant to upload any more footage whilst you have clueless reviewers. If they can reject my 60 clips due to: Editorial caption required - When I completed all the details correctly, then what on earth are they doing at Shutterstock as reviewers?
  7. Two of my editorial shots were rejected for Altered Editorial reasons. Nothing was altered, added or removed from the shots. Just the usual burn-in and cropping was done. And the SS Support Form does not work. Batch number 90140527 for photos 375928333 and 375928339.
  8. Since I cant open a thread in Announcements. http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/announcing-shutterstocks-exclusive-partnership-bfa
  9. This editorial image is from one of the small chapels inside the Washington National Cathedral. I would appreciate all feedback and especially thoughts about composition, lighting, and whether their is too much distortion due to the wide angle lens (17mm). I appreciate your time and critiques!

    © © Xavier Ascanio

  10. Xavier Ascanio

    MFL Fiorina

    From the album: XA_Gallery

    Looking for feedback especially on lighting and noise reduction. Image was taken during a rally outdoors on a cloudy day. How can I improve lighting, reduce noise in this kind of situation where I have no control of the situation other than the settings on my camera? My settings were, 105mm, f/9.0, 1/60 s, ISO 200. Thank you for looking and commenting!

    © Xavier Ascanio

  11. From the album: XA_Gallery

    Using suggestions on an earlier version, I cropped out alot of the background and brightened the sign. What else could I do to make this a better image? Is it worth submitting? Thank you for your feedback!

    © © Xavier Ascanio

  12. Hello. I have a question. In overall, non of us can submit photos or illustrations of real phones such as iphone without removing buttons etc or submit it as a editorial, right? But shutterstock is full of exact copies of iphones, sumsungs etc. with no editorial licence. Just type "smartphone", click on popular and 4 of first 8 images are copies os iphone 6 and samsungs galaxy S line. They are on the top of popular so the sell in many, many copies and taking away money from people who truly obey the rules. Why is that so?
  13. Just had this image not approved with the reason failed to select editorial caption. I am requesting input on why this generic cloth fragment needs editorial caption selected. Thank you Shutterteam.
  14. Hey, I was used to upload editorial pictures of Lego minifigures in my portofolio but when i did so last time they were immediatly rejected with this reason "We are no longer accepting this type of content." Has anybody any idea why so ? Do you have similar problem ? i tried several times over a few days and i had a look at all legal information changes mentioning Lego on Shutterstock but didn't find anything. A bit annoying, cause these photos were in my top sells... Thanks for your answer !
  15. hello, what kind of problems can happen to shutterstock for selling editorial content, that a photographer took in a event, that for some reason or another didn't have or asked for the required credentials to shoot the event? are there any examples that can you give. thanks
  16. hello, i've been uploading photos from events i've gone and marked them as editorial, and most if not all photos were refused for lack of credentials. Most, if not 100% of the events i go don't require credentials at all. And even i can't get credential access, i can still go as a normal guy who pays a ticket to enter and still shoot the event. I don't understand refusal by lack of credentials ??? Can you explain? thank you.
  17. From the album: West Yorkshire

    The Vue Cinema, Halifax - has been approved as editorial
  18. does anyone know if theres been a policy change with regard to illustrative editorial images? I have quite a few brand/product images in my portfolio that have been accepted within the past year up until just last month. They have been selling nicely. I have a few of the New York Times newspaper and this last week I uploaded a few more. They were rejected stating 'we no longer accept this type of image' ??wtf?? I don't see anything in the announcements. am I missing something?
  19. I am not new - but new to try to upload editorial material. And I never get it right - So what am I doing wrong? It is the second image. Editorial Caption--Image requires proper caption and must be tagged as editorial. Special Characters -- Special characters cannot be used in titles/descriptions or editorial captions.
  20. Hi, I was wondering, If i send one image to Editorial. Can i Still sell it ?. I Still can earn money with that image in Editorial. Thanks!.
  21. Over the years I've been more bemused than angry over some of the rejection reasons SS has offered for images, but now they've gone too far. The shot below was taken at the Bay Ridge Arab American EID celebration here in Brooklyn Sunday. That's it. Straight out of the camera, processed with Photo Mechanic--which users may already know, doesn't permit alterations beyond cropping & metadata--in this particular instance no alterations whatever were made, no cropping, no reduction of highlights etc... It went from my card, to PM to SS. This batch of about forty shots suffered a number of rejections, some of which were valid (shooting on a bright day when nearly everyone's wearing either pure black or pure white clothing is a bit of a lighting challenge, to be sure), some excessively nit-picky. I'd already decided to resubmit a few when I came across the one below, last in the batch, rejected because: "Altered Editorial -- Major alterations to editorial content such as adding or removing objects from a scene are prohibited. Alterations that go beyond traditional photographic techniques (dodging/burning, cropping, color adjustments, etc.) are unacceptable." This is a first for me. I'm a credentialed photojournalist, so I have to take this seriously. I don't know enough about digital forensics to guess how or why someone assumed the image had been altered. Like most everyone else here I've come to accept a degree of capriciousness in the review process. The price of growth, I reckon. We've gone from the In & Out Burger of stock agencies to McD's. & I realize this isn't going to make the NY Times front page (STAR SHUTTERSTOCK EDITORIAL SHOOTER ACCUSED OF IMAGE TAMPERING!), but it's bad enough that while SS pays lip service to emphasizing editorial content, they already do so little in actual support of the process (e.g. canceling the Red Carpet program). I've already e-mailed support (first time in nearly four years on SS), but now I'm wondering if any other editorial shooters are getting stuff like this, especially recently. andy http://shutterstock.com/g/akatz
×
×
  • Create New...