Jump to content

Rejection "reasons" approaching ludicrous


Recommended Posts

I've seen quite a few threads recently about SS rejecting images.  Well I'm a victim too.  Most images in recent batches have been thrown out for a variety of reasons, mostly "focus" or "noise/film grain".  Here are a couple of recent rejections.  They've been accepted by Adobe Stock, iStock and Alamy; they were shot on RAW at 200 ISO on a Canon 5D, with a Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM lens; they were saved for SS (and the other agencies) as max quality/min compression jpegs.  I've checked them at 100% in Photoshop, and can see nothing wrong.  Mind you, the versions uploaded to this thread are tiny 1.07M, so don't look too great when copied and pasted back into P'shop...

Am I right in thinking that a BOT or AI or some algorithm is part, or all, of the review process at SS, and are others experiencing similar frustration?  Any reactions or suggestions out there? 

1.37 budapest mátyás church.jpg

1.5 budapest parliament building.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

From my experience SS seems to require the main subject or where the eye falls to be in focus.

So for me on the first photo it's the tall spire in the background and for the second it's the dome.

Unfortunately I can't really tell from the pics if that is the case but if they are not the sharpest point of the picture then that maybe the reason.

Also because images get accepted at different agencies doesn't necessarily mean they will at SS, they all seem to have different acceptance criteria and look for different things. I have had pics the other way round, rejected at as and accepted here

Link to post
Share on other sites

SS is quite picky as it comes to static images. They have to be tack sharp. The one below is a little soft, maybe a little sharpening could help you out.

I agree with LecartPhotos that the focus is not really clear (for the viewer) in these images, but I am not sure if that is the problem for the SS reviewers. They mainly look for technical and compliance issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Robin Bouwmeester said:

SS is quite picky as it comes to static images. They have to be tack sharp. The one below is a little soft, maybe a little sharpening could help you out.

I agree with LecartPhotos that the focus is not really clear (for the viewer) in these images, but I am not sure if that is the problem for the SS reviewers. They mainly look for technical and compliance issues.

Unfortunately we don't know the problems for the reviewers, we are all guessing

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I am trying to stay chilled and not let the ridiculous get to me - todays rejection (and last nights for same images) are 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.

I give you the keywords thus rejected
 

keywords reject.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Studio 2 said:

Latin isn't English. When I was uploading I just put the Latin in after acceptance otherwise you are banging your head against a brick wall.

Apart from the fact that I always include Latin in every photo of plant and animal life and the upload in question included 15 shots - all with latin in both title and keywords, and these were the only ones rejected for keywords.

I mean if SS wanted to start refusing to take latin keywords it would be a pain but I could work with it - what does my head in is the total lack of consistency. Not just with whether latin is reject reason (if that is the reason - the word jackdaw appears multiple times because there are multiple different names used for this bird any of which might be searched) but with every other thing they seem to come up with, there is rarely any rhyme or reason to what is rejected and what is not and we cannot learn from either the "rules" or experience.

The end result is I now shrug and do not bother making the effort here - the shots are being accepted elsewhere.   Over time this is only going to negatively impact SS as more customers do not find what they want here and buy elsewhere because other sites have consistency in how their rules are applied.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2020 at 8:40 PM, Will Perrett said:

I've seen quite a few threads recently about SS rejecting images.  Well I'm a victim too.  Most images in recent batches have been thrown out for a variety of reasons, mostly "focus" or "noise/film grain".  Here are a couple of recent rejections.  They've been accepted by Adobe Stock, iStock and Alamy; they were shot on RAW at 200 ISO on a Canon 5D, with a Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM lens; they were saved for SS (and the other agencies) as max quality/min compression jpegs.  I've checked them at 100% in Photoshop, and can see nothing wrong.  Mind you, the versions uploaded to this thread are tiny 1.07M, so don't look too great when copied and pasted back into P'shop...

Am I right in thinking that a BOT or AI or some algorithm is part, or all, of the review process at SS, and are others experiencing similar frustration?  Any reactions or suggestions out there? 

1.37 budapest mátyás church.jpg

1.5 budapest parliament building.jpg

Use words "selective focus" in description and keywords. Change name files and upload again. And please write the result here)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, David Calvert said:

This has just been rejected. Apparently, it's out of focus (it isn't) and it has noise (it doesn't). In the meantime, it's been accepted by Alamy and Dreamstime.

DSC0113_a.jpg

Yep I now work on submit it to all - if (when) SS reject for daft reason resubmit once, then tough titty if they still dont like it.  So long as the same image is accepted elsewhere - including Adobe - I do not get stressed about the quality as I have decided that SS is so random the actual quality of images is almost irrelevant.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2020 at 6:30 PM, BalkansCat said:

plus, maybe, if we start to do this massively, they will see there's an issue that costs more than their reviewing policy...

The same thing has been going on for at least 10 years

There were times it was worse and there were times it was better, but the constant was always the consistency in their inconsistency

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mike Kuhlman said:

Smooth surfaces like clear blue sky and clouds are dead-ringers for JPEG posterization artifacts like posterization banding (if there are any). 

 

That's why it is best to process images in 16 bit even though the naked eye is hard pressed to tell the difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going to be paid out 10 cents for your troubles, I suggest 10 cent effort:

1.) First, put your Canon or Nikon away.

2.) Thumb through some vacation photos from a few years back; the ones you took with your iPhone.

3.) Reduce the size to 6 or 7MP in Photoshop.

4.) Keyword sparingly.

5.) Upload a small handful and see if they're accepted.

Rinse. Repeat. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2020 at 7:40 PM, Will Perrett said:

1.5 budapest parliament building.jpg

I realize that this may be unpopular on this thread, and I don't want to defend the reviewing process which is surely not perfect. However I will point out that there are a couple of quite noticeable sensor spots on this one and that the lighting is very unfavorable (whole building in shade), making the photo poor and likely contributing to a limited sharpness. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2020 at 1:44 PM, oleschwander said:

Yes, Shutterstock have an issue with fire, water, smoke snow, clouds and other natural phenonemes.

So so true. Small particles in the ocean are read as grain, apparently... Another good reason to prevent ocean plastic 😅

Rust too. Shutterstock doesn't like rust. 🤷‍♀️ Their loss really, more underwater greatness and dark rusty places for the competition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2020 at 7:40 PM, Will Perrett said:

I've seen quite a few threads recently about SS rejecting images.  Well I'm a victim too.  Most images in recent batches have been thrown out for a variety of reasons, mostly "focus" or "noise/film grain".  Here are a couple of recent rejections.  They've been accepted by Adobe Stock, iStock and Alamy; they were shot on RAW at 200 ISO on a Canon 5D, with a Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM lens; they were saved for SS (and the other agencies) as max quality/min compression jpegs.  I've checked them at 100% in Photoshop, and can see nothing wrong.  Mind you, the versions uploaded to this thread are tiny 1.07M, so don't look too great when copied and pasted back into P'shop...

Am I right in thinking that a BOT or AI or some algorithm is part, or all, of the review process at SS, and are others experiencing similar frustration?  Any reactions or suggestions out there? 

Will, unless these are extremely important photos to you to get them through, I wouldn't waste much time with them. I have had about 260 photos here for a couple of years now about Budapest. many about the Fisherman's bastion, the Parliament, the Matthias church, etc. some (I am not trying to brag here!) of them are decent images. I have similar images to yours as well, perhaps in a bit more favourable lighting. and I can count on one hand how many ever sold (for 25 cents during the "good old days"). actually from the 260 only 62 were downloaded and brought in a total of $18 : ). so unless I am super unfortunate and you would be very, very lucky with buyers (the bastions is almost empty these day. no tourists) if you hammered them through...? I don't see much point to sweat it for one more minute. But I fully feel your frustration with recent reviews. I don't even bother any more. waste of time and energy.
here is one of mine of the Matthias church. not great. never sold. just an example. https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/matthias-church-budapest-facade-fine-details-1103637134

Link to post
Share on other sites

speaking of rejections (legit or bogus). let me try to pick your brain fellow SS sufferers. on the attached clip (I am not talking about quality or sharpness or noise or.... none of that), strictly from the guy's shoe point of view! are those decorative brown stripes on the shoe considered some sort of a logo or representation of brand? it's clearly not like the much recognizable NIKE swoosh! it got rejected by two sites for "visible trademark". I don't know. I always thought those were just design elements. Tx.
 

0-0-0-Fountain-Legs-0-small.jpg

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...