Jump to content

Image Acceptance - getting ridiculous


Recommended Posts

I just had 28 of 28 photos rejected, which has never happened to me before. I can understand rejecting some of them that were silhouette sunset shots, which may not be some people's cup of tea, but plenty others were more normal shots of other subjects. It really pissed me off because some were great shots and rejected for a plainly innapropriate reason ("Poor lighting" on almost every rejection, even though some of the shots were textbook landscape shots).

 

SS does a disservice to everyone - contributors and buyers - when they're wildly inconsistent, dishonest or just plain lazy in critiquing. If there's some order from up high to limit approvals, that's a slap to us by not being up front and instead using lame excuses for rejections. And if Attila is running wild, they need to get rid of that person.

 

I can try a minimal re-edit, but editing much would actually make a well-lit photo poorly lit. What a waste of everyone's time!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 636
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes I agree, sometimes the reasons are absurd. I have been complimented all my life on my composition and eye ... So when I get images rejected for comp, it really pisses me off, especially if I have

Posted Images

My rejections not extremely high but the number of rejected photos is increasing a lot lately from few weeks ago!! I truly not understand why!! Poor lighting and Composition!! I have been ss contributor for over many years! never have such a problem before! the photo come back with poor lighting are the one that I think the lighting is perfectly well!! what kind of lighting do you want!! who review the photos lately! the reviewer is getting more and more ridiculous!!

 

I made average of 250 dollars a month! I do think my photography skill is better than those so call reviewers!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, seven years with SS may be more than enough for me, too. Management is doing well in the market and on Wall Street. Good for them.

 

For contributing photographers, the situation is different. Strategy is planned without even a thought for the contributors. We only become aware of new policies after the fact when our work is rejected (example: the requirement for editorial credentials and the ensuing misunderstandings, especially on the part of reviewers).

 

Mostly it boils down to INFORMATIOM. SS chooses not to inform its contributors in any meaningful way. How many posts in this forum are devoted to guessing and imagining what SS or the reviewers intended, or what they actually wanted, or what the muddled inconsistent policy really means?

 

No information + inconsistency + disrespect = unhappy campers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, seven years with SS may be more than enough for me, too. Management is doing well in the market and on Wall Street. Good for them.

 

For contributing photographers, the situation is different. Strategy is planned without even a thought for the contributors. We only become aware of new policies after the fact when our work is rejected (example: the requirement for editorial credentials and the ensuing misunderstandings, especially on the part of reviewers).

 

Mostly it boils down to INFORMATIOM. SS chooses not to inform its contributors in any meaningful way. How many posts in this forum are devoted to guessing and imagining what SS or the reviewers intended, or what they actually wanted, or what the muddled inconsistent policy really means?

 

No information + inconsistency + disrespect = unhappy campers.

 

Well said, especially on inconsistency and the confusion of editorial images.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Never understood why you guys dont post your issues in the critique forum with the Rejected Images instead of a Pity Party. Good to get it off your chest but, has no effect. My last rejection was almost 2 years ago and I submit 50 a month Like clockwork. One Image that was clearly My Fault from a stupid clone mark in one eye. Fixed it and good to go.Maybe you guys wont show us because deep down, The reviewer was right.

 

A lot of us have been around a long time and a Lot Longer than Microstock and some of us were also reviewers, Give it a shot But, remember we will tell you the truth. Some really don't wanna hear that. To be a Image maker,Dancer,artist,actor whatever in the arts is about Rejection and how you handle it going forward.

 

it is not some rouge reviewer guys, They want to accept everything But they can't.

 

lets see your stuff along with a 100% crop, Maybe your simply Missing something.We see it 5 times a day.

 

I reviewed an average of 20/30,000 images a month for 3+ years. seen it all My Friends.

 

Last week they accepted a 100,000 Images so...Somebodys doing something right,

 

 

We are here to help you. Just saying Guys...Take it or leave it. We all Love our own work. Your call, Use us or not. complaining about reviewers will get you Nowhere very quickly and just make ya nuts..been there also.

 

And Like I always say.."If ya believe in something, Fight for it"

 

Yes, you're right, of course.

 

I probably want SS to be something they're not, something they never intended. I have been a life-long wannabe photojournalist, never having the confidence to go it alone, still having many magazine covers and inside content to my credit, and then stock, the old-fashioned way with transparencies and agencies that shot you tear sheets when you sold something.

 

I have done microstock my way, caring nothing for objects on white or business models in countless variations on a theme. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

 

It's been fun and a source of retirement income to keep my hardware current.

 

SS can't defer to me or to the other 35,000 or so photographers who contribute. It's their game. I can play or not. My choice.

 

But it sure felt GOOD to rant once!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ginger, it doesn't matter if another site accepts it.

 

PUT THEM IN THE CRITIQUE FORUM FIRST. That is , if you want a honest answer.

 

As others have pointed out, the reviews are based on human behavior and are clearly described as "arbitrary" at best. I don't see how posting images to the forum to be critiqued will help improve acceptance. It's just adding another layer of human subjectivity to an already inconsistent review process.

 

If initial images are approved (but less than the 7 needed for full acceptance), then those images that have been approved should be placed into a holding queue while the other images are improved. If I'm told an image would have been improved, why would I then go back and adjust or improve it if I've been told it's acceptable? It makes no sense to have to resubmit approved images again and again. "Approved" should mean "approved," not "approved, please try again."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ginger, it doesn't matter if another site accepts it.

 

PUT THEM IN THE CRITIQUE FORUM FIRST. That is , if you want a honest answer.

 

As others have pointed out, the reviews are based on human behavior and are clearly described as "arbitrary" at best. I don't see how posting images to the forum to be critiqued will help improve acceptance. It's just adding another layer of human subjectivity to an already inconsistent review process.

 

If initial images are approved (but less than the 7 needed for full acceptance), then those images that have been approved should be placed into a holding queue while the other images are improved. If I'm told an image would have been improved, why would I then go back and adjust or improve it if I've been told it's acceptable? It makes no sense to have to resubmit approved images again and again. "Approved" should mean "approved," not "approved, please try again."

 

"Like"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ginger, it doesn't matter if another site accepts it.

 

PUT THEM IN THE CRITIQUE FORUM FIRST. That is , if you want a honest answer.

 

As others have pointed out, the reviews are based on human behavior and are clearly described as "arbitrary" at best. I don't see how posting images to the forum to be critiqued will help improve acceptance. It's just adding another layer of human subjectivity to an already inconsistent review process.

 

If initial images are approved (but less than the 7 needed for full acceptance), then those images that have been approved should be placed into a holding queue while the other images are improved. If I'm told an image would have been improved, why would I then go back and adjust or improve it if I've been told it's acceptable? It makes no sense to have to resubmit approved images again and again. "Approved" should mean "approved," not "approved, please try again."

 

We ask people to post their images in the critique forum because most of the time the poster is new and has very little idea of what makes a technically good image and what makes a good stock shot.

 

We can show them how composition can be improved, how their focus is, their exposure and commercial value. We don't necessarily have to see images that the reviewer would have said they would have approved but for the most part new posters have several areas they can work on.

 

There are dozens upon dozens of people who did not pass their initial submissions that did pass after posting in the critique forum and hearing what we have to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen acceptance rates of late drop to about 20%. Most rejects for "lighting" or "focus". It's looking like it was about a year ago when there were few months of utterly random "one click" rejections.

 

I've pretty much stopped submitting for now. Its not worth the time/effort until they actually start reviewing properly again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How long does it actually take to be accepted iv'e been waiting for 4 days now with no response and how do they contact you to make you aware?

.

 

Usually the acceptance reviews are done within 7 days, sometimes it can go up to 10 days. You will receive an email from them showing which images were accepted and which were not and whether or not you received the necessary minimum of 7 out of 10 accepted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. Four days review (!). Attila hit me again. Hasn't been around for months now, so I don't complain. But he's back with a vengeance: 21 out of 25 rejected, every single one of them for "poor lighting". No matter what the subject was. No matter if black&white or color. Bright summer daylight or mysterious forest brook.

 

The four accepted images couldn't be more dull (just added them because they MIGHT slip through, haha):

 

- two water lily shots from my parents' 1 sqft garden pond, both in the shadow. Aperture trickery with white balance and shadow booster.

- a piece of rock against the sea. Yawn.

- a rock formation and a rescue boat in front of it. Shot with an underwater p&s from the shaky main boat, so full of noise that I had to radically apply Noise Ninja. But still accepted.

 

Want a sigh?

 

*SIGHHHHHHHH*

 

Best regards,

 

Christian

Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting. Four days review (!). Attila hit me again. Hasn't been around for months now, so I don't complain. But he's back with a vengeance: 21 out of 25 rejected, every single one of them for "poor lighting". No matter what the subject was. No matter if black&white or color. Bright summer daylight or mysterious forest brook.

 

The four accepted images couldn't be more dull (just added them because they MIGHT slip through, haha):

 

- two water lily shots from my parents' 1 sqft garden pond, both in the shadow. Aperture trickery with white balance and shadow booster.

- a piece of rock against the sea. Yawn.

- a rock formation and a rescue boat in front of it. Shot with an underwater p&s from the shaky main boat, so full of noise that I had to radically apply Noise Ninja. But still accepted.

 

Want a sigh?

 

*SIGHHHHHHHH*

 

Best regards,

 

Christian

 

Yes, I had the same too. All 18 or so for poor lighting/white balance.

 

I stated the photos were taken right on dawn, just after the sun had come over the horizon. The golden hour. I actually wanted the photos with the nice gold light on them. That was the whole idea, the whites were not white, they had a golden hue to them.

 

Oh well...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I just got whacked by Atilla. 18/18 rejected, all from the same batch I photographed recently in the Tetons that had 34/35 approved last week. Every one was rejected for the usual subjective 'white balance'/lighting reason. Absolutely ridiculous. Does Shutterstock monitor their reviewers?

 

I just checked your port and if they were from the newest series you have on the Tetons and are of the same quality I would ask for a rereview.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I just got whacked by Atilla. 18/18 rejected, all from the same batch I photographed recently in the Tetons that had 34/35 approved last week. Every one was rejected for the usual subjective 'white balance'/lighting reason. Absolutely ridiculous. Does Shutterstock monitor their reviewers?

 

I just checked your port and if they were from the newest series you have on the Tetons and are of the same quality I would ask for a rereview.

 

Hi Dave,

 

Thanks for the encouraging advice. I know this is a subjective process and I try to look at my work as critically as I can. I can honestly say that the rejected batch is as good or in some cases better than the batch from the same Tetons series that had a 97+% acceptance rate.

 

I would like to resubmit some of these. Should I change anything so that I can say that the images were reworked even if minimally? I hate to mess with them too much since I think they are good and are being accepted at other agencies. OTOH, I like it here at Shutterstock and don't want to anger the powers that be. Any advice from you or any of the other veterans here regarding the resubmission process would be much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I just got whacked by Atilla. 18/18 rejected, all from the same batch I photographed recently in the Tetons that had 34/35 approved last week. Every one was rejected for the usual subjective 'white balance'/lighting reason. Absolutely ridiculous. Does Shutterstock monitor their reviewers?

 

I just checked your port and if they were from the newest series you have on the Tetons and are of the same quality I would ask for a rereview.

 

+1 hell yeah!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just had one of the most idiotic rejections for a while.

 

An image failed after only 36 hours in the queue (only one there, i was going to add to it later today. Normal review time is 7 days).

 

It's a photo taken underground of cave formations. No people, nothing manmade in there at all. No signs, nothing - a completely natural underground chamber.

It just got rejected for "Trademark".

 

It's one of the most ridiculous rejections i've had and just goes to show that people really dont bother actually checking anything at all half the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just had my 3rd 100% rejection in 2 weeks. I am done with uploading to SS until this cr@p stops!

 

calm down...:)i recently had some strong rejections also, before some batches all accepted...resubmit once some were approved...almost all were approved in others agencies...just to say do not take this to seriously...rejected here accepted elsewhere...rejected elsewhere accepted here...i just don´t bother anymore, and iam going to stop with resubmitions if photos are accepted in other places.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm usually pretty philosophical but just had 100% rejection on images that have been accepted everywhere else, this time all for focus. Nine other sites accepted 80-100% of them.

 

I maybe could take this on board but the previous batch of submissions (also accepted no probs elsewhere),I got less than half through, even had an image accepted whilst the image it was cropped from (to remove in shot blank background copy space) was rejected for focus! So the heavy crop was apparently focused more accurately than the original, go figure.

 

Gonna quit submitting for a while too, life's too short for battling this randomness. It's as if they're using a few interns (summer's here, high rejections again!) who are shown what to look for on perfect studio lit shots and are then applying that to all images robot fashion.

 

Anyone considering resubmitting maybe wait until the holiday season is over? Might be interesting.

 

I think you have to be very careful also not to let the sterile requirements of stock photography suck all the creativity and enjoyment out of your work and indeed your way of looking at things through the lens. That's a whole other topic though!

 

Nice, a quick whine has cheered me up no end!

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...