| Author |
Message |
semmickphoto
Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Posts: 6632
Location: Stuck between a shutter and a hard place
|
Posted: Sat May 19, 2012 4:52 am
|  |
FT has no clue what they are accepting. Talking about a batch of weird reviewers, FT is leading. No one can figure them out. In a batch of the same quality photos of the same subject, they accept some, reject some and then use 5 different reasons for the rejections. Let alone their rejection email with 10 different technical reasons.
/rantoff
|
|
woodyone
Joined: 24 Sep 2009
Posts: 445
Location: Here
|
|
Posted: Sat May 19, 2012 6:08 am
| |
I have to say that of the sites that "do" rejections, SS is the most consistent in terms of where the goalposts are.
|
|
maxim1110
Joined: 09 Dec 2010
Posts: 294
Location: Nijmegen, the Netherlands
|
|
Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 4:03 am
| |
| woodyone wrote: | | I have to say that of the sites that "do" rejections, SS is the most consistent in terms of where the goalposts are. |
Absolutely not. I have images online that are slightly out of focus (like my best selling image), but time and time again images that are tack sharp get rejected for the sole reason of being out of focus.
Furthermore, I just had a batch of a building rejected for trademark. The front of the building did have some logos, but I removed them using Lightroom. The sides of the building didn't have any logos in the first place, but still got rejected for trademark. I'm not at home right now but I'll post an example later this afternoon. Funny thing is also that at the same time, they got accepted to IS.
|
|
woodyone
Joined: 24 Sep 2009
Posts: 445
Location: Here
|
|
Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 5:25 am
| |
When I say "most consistent", I mean more so than others - I've even had a focus rejection here (my stuff can have many flaws but focus problems are pretty much impossible). Still, it tends to be weaker stuff that get's rejected unlike elsewhere and reviewers here do seem to exercise some actual judgement so that something unique with slight technical problems will get in ahead of something technically perfect where they have thousands almost identical already.
|
|
robhainer
Joined: 03 May 2010
Posts: 2905
Location: Dallas, GA, USA
|
|
Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 8:54 pm
| |
| maxim1110 wrote: | | woodyone wrote: | | I have to say that of the sites that "do" rejections, SS is the most consistent in terms of where the goalposts are. |
Absolutely not. I have images online that are slightly out of focus (like my best selling image), but time and time again images that are tack sharp get rejected for the sole reason of being out of focus.
Furthermore, I just had a batch of a building rejected for trademark. The front of the building did have some logos, but I removed them using Lightroom. The sides of the building didn't have any logos in the first place, but still got rejected for trademark. I'm not at home right now but I'll post an example later this afternoon. Funny thing is also that at the same time, they got accepted to IS. |
You do know their trademark policy is not to accept any singular modern buildings or parts of such buildings? I might not agree with every shutterstock review, but its one of the easiest sites to figure out what they want. I almost always know when an image will pass, and which images are iffy. A rejection is a rare thing, and when it does happen, it's on an image that was iffy.
|
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39654
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 11:09 pm
| |
"Iffy" for one may be a treasure for another and we all know that some Images rejected go on to sell very well.
|
|
robhainer
Joined: 03 May 2010
Posts: 2905
Location: Dallas, GA, USA
|
|
Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 11:40 pm
| |
When I say "iffy," I'm talking more about the lighting not being perfect or the focus just slightly off tack sharp.
The low commercial values or occasional weird composition rejections are something else.
|
|
lmel900
Joined: 13 Mar 2011
Posts: 5007
|
|
Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 11:54 pm
| |
My rejected images are my best sellers, why is rejected in the first place is beyond me.
I get all different rejection reasons, from focus to lcv, and I know is incorrect. The main proof is that they sell.
|
|
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 24308
Location: Our Stock, Food & Portrait photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 6:47 am
| |
| lmel900 wrote: | My rejected images are my best sellers, why is rejected in the first place is beyond me.
I get all different rejection reasons, from focus to lcv, and I know is incorrect. The main proof is that they sell. |
Very true about previously rejected images become good sellers. I had a whole batch of BBQ rib shots rejected. They were resubmitted and now all of them are some of the top sellers of all rib shots in Shutterstock. Life is just full of surprises LOL
|
|
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26829
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
|
Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 7:24 am
| |
| hhltdave5 wrote: | | Life is just full of surprises LOL |
Or a reviewer who doesn't know his ahemhole from his elbow.
|
|
lmel900
Joined: 13 Mar 2011
Posts: 5007
|
|
Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 8:29 am
| |
| ruxpriencdiam wrote: | | hhltdave5 wrote: | | Life is just full of surprises LOL |
Or a reviewer who doesn't know his ahemhole from his elbow. |
So true, Barry! Exactly the one who reviewed my last batch, AKA Attila LOL
|
|
pharm
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9423
Location: Never quite sure
|
|
Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 10:16 am
| |
| mandy wrote: | | ...Ageed. I just uploaded my first flower shop to FT and it was accepted. |
Hi Mandy! Do you ever check your PMs? I just noticed that I sent you one in Sept of 2010 and you've never opened it. I don't even remember what we were talking about when I sent it. LOL
|
|
borojoint
Joined: 16 Apr 2010
Posts: 1782
Location: Bulgaria
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 9:08 am
| |
This file was rejected for LCV along with 7 from the series.I have 15 files from that series approved and selling very,very well(1 week since they are approved and I got about 40 sales on them).They are exactly the same only different cocktails with different recipes.
It's about time this LCV rejection reason to be removed
It's ridiculous to reject images for LCV because no one knows what sells as proven with the rest of the series
Not to mention that I waited for a week before they get reviewed only to see them rejected from someone who clearly don't know what LCV is or just don't like them
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
243.9 KB |
| Viewed: |
701 Time(s) |
|
|
|
hansenn
Joined: 10 Feb 2009
Posts: 827
Location: netherlands
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 5:02 pm
| |
| semmickphoto wrote: | FT has no clue what they are accepting. Talking about a batch of weird reviewers, FT is leading. No one can figure them out. In a batch of the same quality photos of the same subject, they accept some, reject some and then use 5 different reasons for the rejections. Let alone their rejection email with 10 different technical reasons.
/rantoff |
I love f*t****
|
|
hansenn
Joined: 10 Feb 2009
Posts: 827
Location: netherlands
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 5:05 pm
| |
from my latest batch of 24 only 2 got accepted.
|
|
| |
|
Log in
