Jump to content

Every single photo I upload with selective focus is rejected


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

So the Shutterstock contributor AI algorithm for accepting/rejecting images is entirely broken. I can't upload a single photo shot in f/5 or wider without getting rejected for "noise." Basically anyth

Time for us to selectively choose better / more suitable agencies to upload our work

Agree. I think Shutterstock has completely lost control of its review process. It's pathetic really.

Posted Images

It is not Shutterstock's fault. If they are paying us ten cents per download, I am sure their staff also must be getting peanuts and all good guys must have quit. So, in short, the new inexperienced reviewers do not know what bokeh means or why pros use selective focus. According to them all this comes under 'main subject not in focus'. So there goes your creative image. Coming to 10 cents per download which SS pays, I come from India which IS a poor country. But even here our beggars will not accept 10 cents in alms. They will throw it back on my face. Are we lower than beggars?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2021 at 6:36 PM, Sven Hansche said:

downsizing is not an option, bigger pictures are selling better

pictures are supposed to be in focus at 100% resolution, of course if you zoom into 200% or 300% they get blurry.

 

perhaps someone should buy the outsourced workers in India some new monitors so they can approve pictures more correctly.

I did not know reviewing was done in India.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Earlier my images used to get reviewed within 10-15 minutes of submission (amazing but true). Now they take upto 5-7 DAYS. What goes SS? Have you laid down your staff? I can understand if it is due to low sales/turnover due to pandemic and all good photographers stopping submitting their good stuff at SS due to your paying a 'huge' price of 10 cents per download.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, KishoreJ said:

Earlier my images used to get reviewed within 10-15 minutes of submission (amazing but true). Now they take upto 5-7 DAYS. What goes SS? Have you laid down your staff? I can understand if it is due to low sales/turnover due to pandemic and all good photographers stopping submitting their good stuff at SS due to your paying a 'huge' price of 10 cents per download.

It's always slow on the weekends. But my images got reviewed within minutes on all weekdays last week.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2021 at 6:36 PM, Sven Hansche said:

downsizing is not an option, bigger pictures are selling better

That is absolutely not true. Some of my biggest sellers are images that have been downsized, some even down to 4 megapixels. The resolution hasn't made any difference to the no. of times the images have sold or the money they have made. In fact, a lot of my lower res images have a better RPD than the ones on full res.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, balajisrinivasan said:

That is absolutely not true. Some of my biggest sellers are images that have been downsized, some even down to 4 megapixels. The resolution hasn't made any difference to the no. of times the images have sold or the money they have made. In fact, a lot of my lower res images have a better RPD than the ones on full res.

I believe that for Sven Hansche it might actually matter in some cases - Look at his awesome photos. These are the kind of pictures you might see on a large size billboard. And in that case the bigger the better.
But, honestly, how many of us have the luck to produce content that ends up on billboards? And even if the content is good enough, how often does it actually happen?
90% of my photos end up being used online and even IF they are used for things like prints in magazines or postcards (which all has happened as well), 3000pixel wide with a 300dpi is completely enough for that purpose. So, at least in my case, I am really sure it doesn't matter to the customer whether my images are 3000 or 7000 pixel wide.
And if you browse the database for most relevant pictures and look at some that are constantly on the top and of good quality, you will notice that most of them are between 2500-3500 pixel wide, so that seems to be good enough to produce bestsellers on Shutterstock.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Firn said:

I believe that for Sven Hansche it might actually matter in some cases - Look at his awesome photos. These are the kind of pictures you might see on a large size billboard. And in that case the bigger the better.
 

Yeah, I see your point, but then you've gotta wonder when you're producing the kind of quality that Sven produces that could potentially end up on a billboard, if microstock is the best option to sell those images.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2021 at 8:24 PM, Steven Tritton said:

Are you getting many rejections? I note from your BHGSPF March Report you added 10 images to SS compared to double or more at other sites.

I don't usually have much a problem with rejections, but damn, near everything is getting rejected in recent days. Is it because of weekend reviews maybe? What's up Subberstock? Get ya knickers in a knot again? 🙄 

I find that the rejections and approvals are all over the place. Once upon a time I hardly ever had photos rejected on here, now I can upload 15 and get 12 rejected or get 12 accepted. No rhyme or reason other than the standard noise/focus crap and the same photos will all be accepted elsewhere. I used to have more photos on Shutterstock than anywhere else but now other stock sites have more.

Despite the 10 cent sales and the odd good sale I am still making some money which has stopped me from pulling out altogether at this stage, although not as much as I should have been.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2021 at 2:14 PM, balajisrinivasan said:

That is absolutely not true. Some of my biggest sellers are images that have been downsized, some even down to 4 megapixels. The resolution hasn't made any difference to the no. of times the images have sold or the money they have made. In fact, a lot of my lower res images have a better RPD than the ones on full res.

I've tried the downsize approach and have found it makes no difference to rejections or the reasons for those rejections.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Charles Lewis said:

I've tried the downsize approach and have found it makes no difference to rejections or the reasons for those rejections.

In this case the focus and noise issue in your photos must be so severe that downsizing isn't enough to fix it and you need to find a way to reduce noise and make sharp photos with your camera from the start. It sounds harsh, but it's not meant that way, but honest advice. If you take care to use the proper camera settings, upload not in original size and fix noise issues in areas where it is necessary, rejections for focus or noise will be a rarity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Charles Lewis said:

I've tried the downsize approach and have found it makes no difference to rejections or the reasons for those rejections.

For me,  it's made all the difference in the world. I find even images shot at 3200 ISO (on a cheap APSC DSLR) and shots with slight focus issues approved when downsized to about 3000 px long edge which never happened during the first few months when I was uploading images at full resolution.

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

In this case the focus and noise issue in your photos must be so severe that downsizing isn't enough to fix it and you need to find a way to reduce noise and make sharp photos with your camera from the start. It sounds harsh, but it's not meant that way, but honest advice. If you take care to use the proper camera settings, upload not in original size and fix noise issues in areas where it is necessary, rejections for focus or noise will be a rarity.

Then again, those photos that are rejected usually get accepted by SS on the second or third tries and are usually accepted first time on other sites. So maybe my camera settings are okay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2021 at 7:49 PM, Firn said:

I believe that for Sven Hansche it might actually matter in some cases - Look at his awesome photos. These are the kind of pictures you might see on a large size billboard. And in that case the bigger the better.
But, honestly, how many of us have the luck to produce content that ends up on billboards? And even if the content is good enough, how often does it actually happen?
90% of my photos end up being used online and even IF they are used for things like prints in magazines or postcards (which all has happened as well), 3000pixel wide with a 300dpi is completely enough for that purpose. So, at least in my case, I am really sure it doesn't matter to the customer whether my images are 3000 or 7000 pixel wide.
And if you browse the database for most relevant pictures and look at some that are constantly on the top and of good quality, you will notice that most of them are between 2500-3500 pixel wide, so that seems to be good enough to produce bestsellers on Shutterstock.

thank you, in fact many of my pictures got used for billboards or high quality prints (according to my findings and bigger license sales).

the point is that it seems that pictures are not reviewed in 100% size but in 200% or more as I am very careful with the quality of my pictures. my camera shots in 8000x6000 pixels (roughly), why should I downsize if there might be a potential client who seeks for bigger resolutions.

plus the same pictures are accepted on all othe rmajor stock sites (adobe, getty etc.), do they accept lower quality? I don't think so, something is going very wrong here and it costs the photographers a lot of energy

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sven Hansche said:

plus the same pictures are accepted on all othe rmajor stock sites (adobe, getty etc.), do they accept lower quality? I don't think so, something is going very wrong here and it costs the photographers a lot of energy

Getty surely does accept low quality images and has zero quality standards (they have other annoying reasons to reject images). I have uploaded pretty much every picture I took with dirt cheap compact cameras from my early days in photography that would never get approved on other sites and they have all been accepted there. Amazingly, one of my biggest sales ever of 60$, taken with a cheap Nikon L11 was also at Getty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Charles Lewis said:

Then again, those photos that are rejected usually get accepted by SS on the second or third tries and are usually accepted first time on other sites. So maybe my camera settings are okay.

Or maybe they aren't? Must be a reason why you get many images rejected on the first or second try while other people don't have such problems  🤷‍♀️
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Firn said:

Or maybe they aren't? Must be a reason why you get many images rejected on the first or second try while other people don't have such problems  🤷‍♀️
 

Where did I say that I got "many images rejected"? Most of mine are accepted first time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Charles Lewis said:

Where did I say that I got "many images rejected"? Most of mine are accepted first time.

My mistake. When you said that downsizing images makes no difference for you, I must have wrongly assumed that you must have a reasonable amount of data to make that statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Sven Hansche said:

thank you, in fact many of my pictures got used for billboards or high quality prints (according to my findings and bigger license sales).

the point is that it seems that pictures are not reviewed in 100% size but in 200% or more as I am very careful with the quality of my pictures. my camera shots in 8000x6000 pixels (roughly), why should I downsize if there might be a potential client who seeks for bigger resolutions.

plus the same pictures are accepted on all othe rmajor stock sites (adobe, getty etc.), do they accept lower quality? I don't think so, something is going very wrong here and it costs the photographers a lot of energy

Beautiful photos Sven, I mostly shoot with a Nikon D850 which is 8000 x 6000 and the files can be very large in size at times. I have wondered if that is an issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, oleschwander said:

Size is never an issue if it’s in focus. I don’t understand @Sven Hansche get images rejected because he is such a skilled phototographer with amazing images ...

Because some of the rejections are not logical. I'm sure I'm like many on here in that I am quite careful about focus and check my shots at 100% (and sometimes more) to ensure they are in focus. Yet sometimes I will get a rejection for focus. Then, when I resubmit it, the next rejection might be for noise, then I resubmit again and it gets accepted.

I sometimes wonder if the standard focus and noise rejections are more about the reviewer not liking the photo than anything else.

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...