Jump to content
SritanaN

I have the problem of reject by Noise/Artifact in my footage and most of my friend also have the same problem

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone, this is my first topic that I post in this forum. I submit the footage to shutterstock nearly one year ago and I got this noise/artifact rejection for some footage and I accept that reason. But for 1-2 weeks ago I met this problem for many of my footage and I surely the quality of my footage is not bad with noise effect as I got from the reviewer. Because I also submit this footage to the other website such as Adobe stock and all of footage pass the criteria of that websites. 
I also ask my friend and the other person who send the footage to shutterstock and they have the same problem. Someone suggest me to submit only 10 footage in each time but I think not good for me or the other contributor who have many footage and want to submit much more as we can to shutterstock because the process of reviewing about 3-5 days, look like long time for waiting.

Therefore, I want to know, dose anyone have the same problem of footage rejection from shutterstock? And dose shutterstock change some system for review the footage?

I still impress and happy to sell my work in shutterstock but I hope your team should have some suggestion for the contributors or clearly criteria to help us for submission good work for you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They do not care about that. They do not care if we pay for shooting, for models, they are full of money now they need to eat cookies and drink tea, there is 500m photos and videos so one or ten contributors less is not problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2020 at 4:23 AM, SritanaN said:

Someone suggest me to submit only 10 footage in each time

Some say so, I also had this opinion, but last week they rejected a batch of only 5 videos because of noise (sunny day, correct ND-Filter, no shaking, no visible noise).

SS is no more good place for new videos, I only submit, because I edited for other agencies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi me also i just put photo that i took it with my phone unfortunately they reject

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As most of the repliers I had the same issues in the past weeks. In some batches EVERY picture was rejected by the named reasons. As I was sure these would not be true to my pictures I re-uploaded the pictures with the remark "Already submitted" so there were reviewed by another reviewer - and they passed...

So I got the feeling, either the first reviewer was annoyed by his job, just rejecting every thing for the same reason or Shutterstock is not interested in further pictures anymore.

If the last reason would be true it would be fair to tell this to us contributors in order to save time and effort...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What many people observe about bulk waste is especially true in recent times. It is also true that the number of images sent and available on the SS databases is enormous and therefore there is greater attention and severity on the part of the reviewers.
But it is also true that the number of wastes are not that high and that almost always concern images that are too retouched or very dark or at high ISO.
Also too similar or repetitive images are rightly rejected and this is a concern for customers who buy, in order not to get too clogged with images.
What I find strange is that only perfect images are accepted, while many contributors have archives of old images on slides or prints that properly restored could be proposed, albeit with quality not comparable to digital.
I am sure there would be a lot of market and demand for images, even if only for editorial use, that document or make available shots that, precisely because they are dated, are not otherwise repeatable.
I wrote it already in another post and I hope that the managers of SS can evaluate this huge opportunity that photographers "elderly like me" could provide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonjour à tous, même soucis :); des images 100 iso, filtre Nb ???? : bruits et artefacts ... incroyable :)

Et, quand bien même, le bruit peux être partie intégrante de l'image, d'un style, NB ou couleur, d'une ligne créative et cela depuis des années et des années, il faudrait pouvoir l'intégrer dans les choix, mais cela demande une autre réflexion :)

Toutes images du monde ne sont pas lisses, propres, règle tiers, ainsi que les choix de bokehs ou de flous et des zones de nets choisies et voulues par le photographe, mais pour le coup paraissent déjà trops créatives, voir dérangeantes pour Shutter. Heureusement que les photographes laissent une grosse place à la créativité et à l'expression, mais je suppose qu'il y a un style Shutter, une qualité Shutter, un ordinateur A.I. Shutter et des employés modèles Shutter.

Nous vivons une drôle d'époque :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/1/2020 at 3:46 PM, Steve Barze said:

What many people observe about bulk waste is especially true in recent times. It is also true that the number of images sent and available on the SS databases is enormous and therefore there is greater attention and severity on the part of the reviewers.
But it is also true that the number of wastes are not that high and that almost always concern images that are too retouched or very dark or at high ISO.
Also too similar or repetitive images are rightly rejected and this is a concern for customers who buy, in order not to get too clogged with images.
What I find strange is that only perfect images are accepted, while many contributors have archives of old images on slides or prints that properly restored could be proposed, albeit with quality not comparable to digital.
I am sure there would be a lot of market and demand for images, even if only for editorial use, that document or make available shots that, precisely because they are dated, are not otherwise repeatable.
I wrote it already in another post and I hope that the managers of SS can evaluate this huge opportunity that photographers "elderly like me" could provide.

SS rejected mine aswell. There are other sites which accept scans of old photos. I submitted some of my old slides to a site called A_ _ _ _ _ _ scanned on my old nikon scanner & they still accepted them  even though they're very grainy

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...