Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I actually rarely whine about rejection. But I can't understand what's going on with videos here in the last months. 

Nearly 100% of my video submissions are rejected, with different reasons, mostly because of noise or grain. 
The first massive rejections came from the GoPro and I attributed them to the small camera. The next ones were made under unfavorable lighting conditions, so that I could understand the rejections. 
But the latest ones I did this week in excellent outdoor conditions, with the Sony AX 53 in 4K. From the tripod. With very little post-processing. 
They were all rejected. Similar pictures, but from the hand and technically worse, were accepted earlier. 
This suggests that there has been a massive change in the acceptance conditions for videos. 
Have others also made this observation ? 

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That's why everyone, right now, should go out and buy an Arri or a Red. Personally I'm leaning toward the Phantom Flex. At only $150,000.00 the microstock sales alone should pay it off in no time.😁

Imagine how good you will feel all over after you go out and spend $100k on a Red system and Shutterstock licenses your clip for 60 cents.  

who is so crazy to buy a 30000 usd camera and get only few dollars commission when a clip is sold?  no thank you

12 minutes ago, geogif said:

Nearly 100% of my video submissions are rejected, with different reasons, mostly because of noise or grain. 

Totally agree. While 90% of my images are approved instantly . Only 10% of my videos are accepted and they take 5 days at least.It Is insane. People complaining about images been rejected have no idea... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good they are raising standards.  Professional footage buyers are generally not interested spending money on footage shot with consumer cameras like the AX53 and a6400.  A high-end professional wouldn't shoot with one of those cameras themselves, so why would they want to buy footage from someone else that was shot with a camera like that?  Keep it up Shutterstock, let's winnow out the mediocre stuff and keep buyers coming back.  If there is a glut of garbage to wade through, they will go elsewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Doug Jensen said:

It's good they are raising standards.  Professional footage buyers are generally not interested spending money on footage shot with consumer cameras like the AX53 and a6400.  A high-end professional wouldn't shoot with one of those cameras themselves, so why would they want to buy footage from someone else that was shot with a camera like that?  Keep it up Shutterstock, let's winnow out the mediocre stuff and keep buyers coming back.  If there is a glut of garbage to wade through, they will go elsewhere.

Thank you very much for your great advice. As always, they are extremely helpful. 
Maybe it also makes sense to buy your great video course? Although, I suspect almost everyone here already owns it. 
Oh yes, and the buyer structure seems to be different at P5 and AS than at SS. Probably no real professionals. They actually buy the garbage that was produced with the grab table cameras. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Foodio said:

That's why everyone, right now, should go out and buy an Arri or a Red. Personally I'm leaning toward the Phantom Flex. At only $150,000.00 the microstock sales alone should pay it off in no time.😁

And of course, for images, nothing less than a 40,000$ Hasselblad H4d-60 will do. Maybe some of us amateurs can make do with a Canon 1Ds Mark 3 and hope the image quality is enough for the high standards of shutterstock and its picky customers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These threads never cease to entertain me.  People who are making no money selling video -- and who are complaining they are having clips rejected and/or not earning any money  -- still act like there is no correlation between the quality of equipment being used and financial success.  Well if equipment doesn't matter, then take a look in the mirror if you want to find out where the weak link is that is causing your rejections and lack of success. It has to be one thing or the other . . . or both.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Doug Jensen said:

These threads never cease to entertain me.  People who are making no money selling video -- and who are complaining they are having clips rejected and/or not earning any money  -- still act like there is no correlation between the quality of equipment being used and financial success.  Well if equipment doesn't matter, then take a look in the mirror if you want to find out where the weak link is that is causing your rejections and lack of success. It has to be one thing or the other . . . or both.

Please stop. Men who sell video on micro stock or macro stock are not a Pro in commercial business.

 I check out Master class program and commercial video production . Main point nether mind that equipment you have, pay attention on concept how creative you are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Doug Jensen said:

These threads never cease to entertain me.  People who are making no money selling video -- and who are complaining they are having clips rejected and/or not earning any money  -- still act like there is no correlation between the quality of equipment being used and financial success.  Well if equipment doesn't matter, then take a look in the mirror if you want to find out where the weak link is that is causing your rejections and lack of success. It has to be one thing or the other . . . or both.

Modern DSLR and mirrorless cameras are perfectly capable of producing high quality footage.

The problem is lack of consistency in the review process. If what is and isn't accepted were more consistent, then we would have a better idea of what is expected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Doug McLean said:

Modern DSLR and mirrorless cameras are perfectly capable of producing high quality footage.

The problem is lack of consistency in the review process. If what is and isn't accepted were more consistent, then we would have a better idea of what is expected.

It is more correct to say that some DSLR and mirrorless cameras are capable of producing video that some customers may buy.  But to say that equipment doesn't matter is just the rantings of fools who don't understand what it takes to be successful with stock footage.   Selling a couple of clips a week is not success. The harder the review process gets, the better it is for people who are actually submitting quality content.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2020 at 10:21 AM, Foodio said:

That's why everyone, right now, should go out and buy an Arri or a Red. Personally I'm leaning toward the Phantom Flex. At only $150,000.00 the microstock sales alone should pay it off in no time.😁

Professional docs shot with DSLRs and movies, like Iron Man 2, shot using 5D MkIIs as POV/B-Roll cameras.  In fact, there was an entire episode of the TV show House shot on a 5D MkII.

Professionals don't use these cameras, though.  I guess there's not enough money in feature length films and episodic TV.  Viva la stock! ;)

Actually, professionals will adapt whatever tool they need to get the job done.  No one has to go broke on gear doing this, nor should they.  

Great post as always, Foodio!  :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2020 at 2:52 PM, balajisrinivasan said:

And of course, for images, nothing less than a 40,000$ Hasselblad H4d-60 will do. Maybe some of us amateurs can make do with a Canon 1Ds Mark 3 and hope the image quality is enough for the high standards of shutterstock and its picky customers.

Gear snobs are generally people who think that the magic of content creation lies in how much you spend on the camera, not in how good you are with the camera you have.  I used to be a gear snob.  Then I started shooting DSLRs for this and haven't looked back.  The video coming out of these cameras is professional quality, or directors like Jon Favreau wouldn't be using them as B-Roll cameras. 

I got a noise rejection on a clip recently, too, even though it was shot and processed in exactly the same way as another clip shot in the same setting.  As I have written before, I think these inconsistencies in reviews arise because reviewers take whatever hits their queue first.  It's unlikely that one person's entire batch is hitting the same reviewer's queue at the same time, so clips from the same batch may be parceled out to different reviewers.

I don't fight it anymore.  I simply upload work I feel was wrongly rejected here to Adobe, and then offer it up here again after it starts selling there.  :)

700_F_316201547_UoOoXf9XC2BsfeSlNORqNpNp

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

A series of videos shot one after the other with the same settings, same camera position, the same lighting, same processing (just trimming) and the same camera as always just different action, 7 of 10 rejected for: Rejection reasons (1)

Noise / Artifacts: Content contains noise, film grain, compression artifacts, pixelation, and/or posterization that detracts from the main subject.

Do you resubmit these videos?

Not to mention, they all were accepted by AS.

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...