I can't get anything approved amnymore

[aminkorea]

It seems that in the last few days everything I shoot is crap, according to reviewers. I have uploaded 30 images and had only a handful accepted. My last upload was only 13 images and only two were accepted.  Reviewers are even using a rejection reason that I have never seen before: Proterazation, what ever that means. Here are a few examples of the images  I see nothing wrong with these images, but I have tried to get them accepted twice and both times they were rejected.  I wonder if it is even worth going through the motions anymore.  

 

[Ackab Photography]

Not sure if this is the reason for rejection, images are kind on the soft side such as if too much noise reduction was applied or if they came out of a cellphone. Couple that with the relatively poor commercial interest of at least some of the photos (for instance the second one of the set above, and maybe others), the higher selectivity SS is applying recently, and there you explain the rejections. Just guessing.

[aminkorea]

22 minutes ago, Ackab Photography said:

Not sure if this is the reason for rejection, images are kind on the soft side such as if too much noise reduction was applied or if they came out of a cellphone. Couple that with the relatively poor commercial interest of at least some of the photos (for instance the second one of the set above, and maybe others), the higher selectivity SS is applying recently, and there you explain the rejections. Just guessing.

You may be right. All I know is that it is very frustrating.  The reason given for rejection was 

Rejection reasons (1)

Posterization: Content contains posterization.

When I clicked the link it went to a page that says that posterization is Abrupt changes of tone which appear as visible banding in an image. 

I don't see that in these, or the other images that were rejected.

In reference to the type of camera I used, it's Nikon d500 with nikkor 24-70 lens. I have never uploaded an image taken with a point and shoot camera. 

[Ackab Photography]

4 minutes ago, aminkorea said:

You may be right. All I know is that it is very frustrating.  The reason given for rejection was 

Rejection reasons (1)

Posterization: Content contains posterization.

When I clicked the link it went to a page that says that posterization is Abrupt changes of tone which appear as visible banding in an image. 

I don't see that in these, or the other images that were rejected.

Yeah I also don't see any posterization specifically. However I see a pattern that when the reviewer thinks the image is technically not so great or not of particular value, one semi random rejection reason is used. "Focus" was quite popular a while ago.

[Phil Lowe]

I don't see any posterization but I do see some hellacious chromatic aberration.  Look along all the hard edges of this image in particular.

[Phil Lowe]

1 hour ago, aminkorea said:

In reference to the type of camera I used, it's Nikon d500 with nikkor 24-70 lens.

Great combination.  What software are you using to post-process?  Are you shooting raw or JPG?  I get stunning results when I take my D500 out with my Tamron 70-200 G2.  It is a great camera (I have 2!)  :)

 

[aminkorea]

53 minutes ago, Phil Lowe said:

Great combination.  What software are you using to post-process?  Are you shooting raw or JPG?  I get stunning results when I take my D500 out with my Tamron 70-200 G2.  It is a great camera (I have 2!) 

 

I usually shoot raw and process using lightroom. Not sure what happened with this batch. My camera was set to jpg, which I never shoot in and do not know how the setting were  changed. This is the second time setting on this camera have changed without me doing the changing.  Wonder if there is a ghost in the machine.

[aminkorea]

1 hour ago, Travers Lewis said:

I used to get that when I used too much saturation or vibrance on images. Try to tone down the edits slightly and try uploading again.

I'll try and see if that helps. Thanks

[Phil Lowe]

2 minutes ago, aminkorea said:

I usually shoot raw and process using lightroom. Not sure what happened with this batch. My camera was set to jpg, which I never shoot in and do not know how the setting were  changed. This is the second time setting on this camera have changed without me doing the changing.  Wonder if there is a ghost in the machine.

I've had that happen, too.  There's a button on the camera that allows you to change file type on it somewhere, and when it's happened to me, it's usually because I bumped that button accidentally.  

[aminkorea]

1 hour ago, Phil Lowe said:

I've had that happen, too.  There's a button on the camera that allows you to change file type on it somewhere, and when it's happened to me, it's usually because I bumped that button accidentally.  

Thanks for that. I will try to figure out which button that is so I can avoid it in the future. Appreciate your help.

[geogif]

6 hours ago, aminkorea said:

It seems that in the last few days everything I shoot is crap, according to reviewers. I have uploaded 30 images and had only a handful accepted. My last upload was only 13 images and only two were accepted.  Reviewers are even using a rejection reason that I have never seen before: Proterazation, what ever that means. Here are a few examples of the images  I see nothing wrong with these images, but I have tried to get them accepted twice and both times they were rejected.  I wonder if it is even worth going through the motions anymore.  

 

Ok, the reviewers give "posterization", like an exaggerated tonal separation, as a reason for rejection. Hmm. 
With the first picture, the reason for a lazy, fast reviewer seems possible. The stained yellow painting could, at a cursory glance, have been mistaken for posterization.  
On the second picture, I find no evidence to explain this reasoning. 
In the lower two, it could be the somewhat stained concrete that a bad reviewer mistook for posterization. 

Therefore I would submit again, without change. 
I feel the same with my videos, they are almost completely rejected with hair-raising reasons. 
But photos are almost 100% passable, so try again. 

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

[aminkorea]

1 hour ago, geogif said:

Ok, the reviewers give "posterization", like an exaggerated tonal separation, as a reason for rejection. Hmm. 
With the first picture, the reason for a lazy, fast reviewer seems possible. The stained yellow painting could, at a cursory glance, have been mistaken for posterization.  
On the second picture, I find no evidence to explain this reasoning. 
In the lower two, it could be the somewhat stained concrete that a bad reviewer mistook for posterization. 

Therefore I would submit again, without change. 
I feel the same with my videos, they are almost completely rejected with hair-raising reasons. 
But photos are almost 100% passable, so try again. 

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

I have submitted these, and others from the same batch twice and both times they were rejected. The first time for noise and the second for posterization. I give up. 

[Ricoh Mirai User Club]

It looks to me like there’s luminance slider issues with three of the photos, parts look more like illustrations than photos.

[Aleks Kvintet]

7 minutes ago, Ricoh Mirai User Club said:

It looks to me like there’s luminance slider issues with three of the photos, parts look more like illustrations than photos.

or saturation

[Richard Whitcombe]

Id go along with a correct rejection for posterisation.

Clear halos on high contrast areas.  Sometimes caused by too much selective adjustments of luminance, sometimes caused by excessive sharpening or clarity.

 

[igor.kramar.shots]

11 hours ago, Ackab Photography said:

... too much noise reduction ....

Right, the aggressive noise reduction and chromatic aberration are the biggest issues in these photos.

[Robin Bouwmeester]

The second photo (with the tree) does contains a lot of (motion) blur in the green leaves. I cannot read you EXIF info. Did you shoot this picture with a relative low shutter on a windy day?

[LuisPinaPhotography]

Hi guys.

Same thing happening to me. I had a big batch of photos that normally would have 90% of approval. On the last few weeks has drop to 40-50%. The rejection reason is always Focus or Noise/Film grain, which on many photos and videos I can't really understand why.

Below you can see one of the photos (including crops) that wasn't accepted for those reasons.

What do you guys think?

Thanks in advance

[Twocoms]

I think this for example , " Abrupt changes of tone" means that the image could have been adjusted with to much contrast.. might be worth looking at..  

 

 

 

[Doug McLean]

When I look at these photos full size, they look over processed. I think the reviewer was right to reject them, even if the reason he game may have been wrong.

 

[Sari ONeal]

There used to be a "low commercial value" rejection reason, which would have been applied to images like these still some 5 years ago.

Technicalities are a mute point when an image has no commercial value.

 

I'm not saying it was always used in an appropriate manner, but I do think it should be re-introduced.

[chris kolaczan]

11 minutes ago, Sari ONeal said:

Technicalities are a mute point

Oh the irony

 

Moot point, not "mute" point

[Rudy Umans]

4 minutes ago, chris kolaczan said:

Oh the irony

 

Moot point, not "mute" point

I think they are both. One follows the other

Hi there Chris. How are things in your neck of the woods. Working?

[balajisrinivasan]

37 minutes ago, Sari ONeal said:

There used to be a "low commercial value" rejection reason, which would have been applied to images like these still some 5 years ago.

Technicalities are a mute point when an image has no commercial value.

 

I'm not saying it was always used in an appropriate manner, but I do think it should be re-introduced.

How do you define "commercial value" though? I mean, since SS says it uses human reviewers, every person would have their own interpretation about what would sell and what won't.

And a lot of times people are wrong. If I've learnt one thing from selling pictures over the years it is that there are many images I would consider having no value that sometimes sell a lot. My best selling picture is a random street in a town taken with a mobile phone, a shot I would have considered useless and thrown into the trash can if I hadn't been adamant to post everything I have onto stock sites. So it's impossible to predict what people could be looking for.

In this particular case, I think Image no. 1 and 3 definitely have some commercial value if they have been keyworded and described properly. I think if you go easy on the processing, they could all be accepted.

[Sari ONeal]

55 minutes ago, chris kolaczan said:

Oh the irony

 

Moot point, not "mute" point

Sooooooorry Chris, I rarely make that mistake, was one coffee short

And yeah, I do know the difference, and am typically careful about it, English not being my native language and all that

 

And, I'll leave it as is because I actually DID leave my ego at the door when I joined Shutterstock many years ago