Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Its really frustrating to have perfect images rejected  for crappy excuses, the most common being noise, etc, etc. I'm about ready to trash any further submissions with Shutterdick as its a waste of my time.

I'm guessing the moderator will reject this post as being too critical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that a lot too. Many of my High rez,large,from RAW files,low ISO,totally meticulously in focus,taken with small apertures with a tripod in calm conditions and checked by me at 100% and minor editing done and has commercial value....Guess what?  Rejected by an incompetent moderator for being out of focus,too noisy and grainy with artefacts and all the rest of it. Happens all too often for no good reason and if they are kind enough to accept it and it sells....they give you ten whole cents...that's right 10 cents...$0.10! Thanks Shutterstock!  I'll go buy a ...er....hmm...........That's $100 for ONE THOUSAND sales! WHAT DO SHUTTERSTOCK MAKE FROM 1000 SALES DO YOU THINK?

A bit more than 100 bucks,that's for sure.   Do you ever feel you're being used?   #rant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

same here for me Neil just had this into my email box any good for you? sorry very tongue in  cheek for a slow Monday morning...I feel your pain...I have given up my mental health is worth more 😀

"For a limited time, Shutterstock contributors can get 60% off a FreshBooks cloud accounting plan for 6 months.
Sign up today and save up to 200 hours a year on your bookkeeping and accounting, while streamlining the way you work with invoices, estimates, proposals, and more. "

 

Edited by Matylda Laurence
change text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad I don't have to share that frustration anymore.

Since I'm not uploading anything (stopped at the end of May 2020), I don't have to be angry anymore.
I don't want to sound or be arrogant in any way, but when I look at the new images, at least half of them make me wonder how they got past the artificial intelligence selection. Many absolutely unsaleable images.

The artificial intelligence sifts through the images. Which is necessary, because the amounts uploaded at shutterstock daily - still, for whatever reason - are too large to be done by staff personnel.

So the database grows daily - besides surely also very good material - by masses of bad images. And many good images do not make it through the selection process.

Maybe the AI is simply not yet mature.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2020 at 7:05 AM, Neil Bussey said:

I get that a lot too. Many of my High rez,large,from RAW files,low ISO,totally meticulously in focus,taken with small apertures with a tripod in calm conditions and checked by me at 100% and minor editing done and has commercial value....Guess what?  Rejected by an incompetent moderator for being out of focus,too noisy and grainy with artefacts and all the rest of it. Happens all too often for no good reason and if they are kind enough to accept it and it sells....they give you ten whole cents...that's right 10 cents...$0.10! Thanks Shutterstock!  I'll go buy a ...er....hmm...........That's $100 for ONE THOUSAND sales! WHAT DO SHUTTERSTOCK MAKE FROM 1000 SALES DO YOU THINK?

A bit more than 100 bucks,that's for sure.   Do you ever feel you're being used?   #rant

 

I'm getting a lot of rejections in the last month or two. More rejections then when I first started to upload. Yet many of these rejections are accepted by Adobe & Getty. Yet posterization,  noise and focus issues seem to abound. Issues I did not have previously and issues the competing stock agencies do not see in the exact same images.

I love Shutterstock. I think they are fantastic. But we need feedback and NOT a canned response on what specifically is the issue with these rejections. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2020 at 11:05 AM, Neil Bussey said:

I get that a lot too. Many of my High rez,large,from RAW files,low ISO,totally meticulously in focus,taken with small apertures with a tripod in calm conditions and checked by me at 100% and minor editing done and has commercial value....Guess what?  Rejected by an incompetent moderator for being out of focus,too noisy and grainy with artefacts and all the rest of it. Happens all too often for no good reason and if they are kind enough to accept it and it sells....they give you ten whole cents...that's right 10 cents...$0.10! Thanks Shutterstock!  I'll go buy a ...er....hmm...........That's $100 for ONE THOUSAND sales! WHAT DO SHUTTERSTOCK MAKE FROM 1000 SALES DO YOU THINK?

A bit more than 100 bucks,that's for sure.   Do you ever feel you're being used?   #rant

incredible, What do these SS idiots want?  I have the same photos rejected taken at low ISO on an old sony mirrorless camera (even downsized) yet they accepted most of my images from my lowly (but still current) canon power shot superzoom (mostly downsized). So downsizing is the solution but extra work for the pitiful chance o earn 10 pennies a DL. Wake up SHUTTERSTOCK. It's about time there was a union to represent artists/photographers because something needs to be done about these tech website rip off merchants. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Ken Morris said:

Does anyone employed with Shutterstock read this forum? Are our concerns not being looked at?

The same number of SS employees are reading these forums as are inspecting the clips. Which is none. Nobody is looking at the clips. It's obvious that it's a completely automated process or there's an "inspector" who simply hits a rejection button without looking. Nobody is reading the forums. This is an echo chamber while some clueless, millionaire tech bros attempt to drain the last value out of this agency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I share the pain, frustration, indeed rage.  All 10 images in my last submission rejected for reasons of "focus".  All accepted without qualm by Alamy, Adobe.  All shot on Canon EOS5D, with Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM lens at low Iso in good light, and as sharp as you like.  What a waste of my effing time.  My first post, so unlikely to be approved by moderator...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a short run of hassle free rejections but today got 2 images rejected for absolute nonsense reasons.

First one of a sunflower got rejected for "noise" taken at ISO 100 on a bright sunny day. Checked at 100 percent and no noise. I'll run it through a noise filter and see if that appeases the AI.

Second one of a shopping trolly is the most annoying. Keywords must be descriptive and relevant to the subject matter and must be in English. Keywords cannot contain special characters, spelling/grammar errors, or repeat words/phrases in excess.

No spelling or grammatical errors and it's all in English. I assume it's rejected for "repeat words/phrases" because I put "shopping cart, shopping trolley."??? Who the hell knows. I'll upload again another time and see if the bots are feeling generous. 

As you've all said. It's really annoying to get rejected for nonsense reasons when it takes a long time to snap the photo, post process, upload, and keyword. It's way more effort than 0.10 cents is really worth. I'm doing this for fun, but it is still very irritating when put so much effort into this and get silly rejections. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

newbie here at SS, but i have the same problem. Weird that istock accepts my "unfocused and noisy" images though. I thought that istock is more selective with the photos they accept. And weird stuff happening, i uploaded some photos from my Phantom 3 Standard drone which has really bad camera, and they were accepted. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100% agree, I have only recently started to submit to SS sometimes they seem to reject for issues I can't see, I usually think "your loss"  1624384460_ScreenShot2020-09-04at10_53_35am.thumb.png.2c2a72b94a67b516f3f7a5ea7fec6b28.png but yesterdays was a doozy.  I kind of think, you don't deserve my images.  I could probably resubmit and it would be accepted but why should a waste my time for 10c. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2020 at 1:55 PM, Will Perrett said:

I share the pain, frustration, indeed rage.  All 10 images in my last submission rejected for reasons of "focus".  All accepted without qualm by Alamy, Adobe.  All shot on Canon EOS5D, with Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM lens at low Iso in good light, and as sharp as you like.  What a waste of my effing time.  My first post, so unlikely to be approved by moderator...

yesterday I've got rejection because of "noise". ISO 320 on Canon EOS R with 100mm L lens. I wonder if it is technically possible :) (and what do they smoke).. But I do not care since 2 pictures rejected by SS became my bestsellers in Adobe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to know exactly how these images are reviewed and I would like to see behind the scenes at shutterstock to see how the reviewers do their job. Maybe if they personally don't like an image they'll just push reject using a stock no pun intended, reason, like noise focus etc.or maybe it is a power trip thing knowing that they will really annoy the photographer by rejecting their worked hard for images.oh they had a bad day or an argument with their partner or maybe they have hangovers a lot then just want to take it out on us poor creatives.or quite possibly they are plain frustrated photographers who would like to be doing what we do,but can't because they don't have the talent haha. The good thing about this forum is is that it makes us realise it's not us it's THEM!   If I find any behind-the-scenes information I will post it here. Happy pixel peeping, peeps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also getting a lot of rejections here. Most of them are about focus and noises. At first I thought "hmm okay, maybe my images is not good enough". I kept trying several times, I believe I improved each time, and yet still with more "Rejected due to noise and/or focus" which seems downright absurd as I looked that my image is already free of any noise (and the focus is at the right part where I want the viewers to focus!). Shutterstock wasn't like this before. What happened???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Neil Bussey said:

I'd like to know exactly how these images are reviewed and I would like to see behind the scenes at shutterstock to see how the reviewers do their job. Maybe if they personally don't like an image they'll just push reject using a stock no pun intended, reason, like noise focus etc.or maybe it is a power trip thing knowing that they will really annoy the photographer by rejecting their worked hard for images.oh they had a bad day or an argument with their partner or maybe they have hangovers a lot then just want to take it out on us poor creatives.or quite possibly they are plain frustrated photographers who would like to be doing what we do,but can't because they don't have the talent haha. The good thing about this forum is is that it makes us realise it's not us it's THEM!   If I find any behind-the-scenes information I will post it here. Happy pixel peeping, peeps!

A video on youtube would be great

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weekends are the worse for rejections, you can almost guarantee that 99.9% of images you submit will be rejected as its only AI that works on the weekend.  You would have thought that with so many contributors pointing out the numerous rejects being received that Shutterstock would look into the cause, but no as usual they ignore the contributors.  You can bet if it were buyers who were discussing concerns of any sort they would jump right in and try to give a plausible explanation and resolution. 

At the end of the day without contributors Shutterstock wouldn't have anything to sell, so the least they can do is come on the forum and give us an explanation, not to do so is an insult to all of us and shows just how little we are appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2020 at 11:55 AM, Will Perrett said:

I share the pain, frustration, indeed rage.  All 10 images in my last submission rejected for reasons of "focus".  All accepted without qualm by Alamy, Adobe.  All shot on Canon EOS5D, with Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM lens at low Iso in good light, and as sharp as you like.  What a waste of my effing time.  My first post, so unlikely to be approved by moderator...

And you have realy nice photos too. Downsizing seems to work though, I have few new photos to upload because I just feel like a begger with a camera. Instead I uploaded some holiday photos taken years ago with my old cheap olympus pocket cam and downsized to near 4 mega pix. I diddn't know what to expect but half were accepted. The others were only rejected because I used the pop are or vivid setting on the camera. My sony NEX mirrorless & newer buget canon powershot has these settings but never tried them. On my newer powershot superzoon I hardly ever get any rejections now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tony Dunn said:

And you have realy nice photos too. Downsizing seems to work though, I have few new photos to upload because I just feel like a begger with a camera. Instead I uploaded some holiday photos taken years ago with my old cheap olympus pocket cam and downsized to near 4 mega pix. I diddn't know what to expect but half were accepted. The others were only rejected because I used the pop are or vivid setting on the camera. My sony NEX mirrorless & newer buget canon powershot has these settings but never tried them. On my newer powershot superzoon I hardly ever get any rejections now. 

Thanks. Interesting about downsizing. Thought it would be the opposite. Maybe i'll try that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gotten rejected multiple times for "Visible Trademark" when there is NO visible trademark at all. I submitted a photo of fruit and a landscape that got rejected for this reason and there is no labels or logos or even words in the photos. Has this happened to anyone else?? It doesn't make any sense.

I even emailed support about it and they said that the photos "probably have a visible trademark" it just seems like the generic answer and that they don't really care.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...