|
|
Welcome, Anonymous (Profile, Private Messages)
Having trouble signing into the forums? Please [ logout ] and log back in.
 Log in
| Author |
Message |
tamila
Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 10
|
Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 7:27 pm
|  |
My whole first batch of video (28) was rejected.
All 28 on them are making money on the other site, :)
Its take so loooooooong to upload and keyword them.
look like I am wasting my time here ....
wonder what SS is looking for........
|
|
kenny123
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 3642
Location: Masterton, New Zealand
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:14 am
| |
| iconex wrote: | | kenny123 wrote: | | The trick to nighttime photography, is to make your exposures in twilight, when the sky is still blue. Regards, Ken |
I wonder how late-evening photography can possibly qualify as night-time photography ? And, there is a huge body of decent night-time shots is stock agencies, with reasonable amount of shadow details where it matters MOST ! Just my view. |
Where it matters most at the current point in time, is here on Shutterstock where they tolerate no visible noise at 100%-If you take images against a black sky,you will increase the chances of gaining unacceptable noise due to extra-long exposures-It's that simple! regards, Ken
|
|
kenny123
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 3642
Location: Masterton, New Zealand
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:30 am
| |
| spe wrote: | I'm not tend to complain usually, but recent mass rejections finally got under my skin. Especially the famous "Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect." for the shots of isolated objects taken in the light-cube, like below
 or
 or  .
For my opinion such reason is complete nonsense, especially in part of WB, which is too subjective (or even personal) to measure in many cases, when person, who doesn't know how the object was looking in reality, trying to put his or her musings as a criteria to accept or reject photo. I'm fully understand, that standard rejection forms are lot easier to use, but they are too general and in many cases you just cannot find what really you should to improve. More detailed rejection reasons would be more handy for photographers and easier to understand, and thus would decrease number of complains for "inappropriate" rejections. |
1. A light cube or light tent will give you more lighting problems than you need.
2.Just daylight from a window will give enough light for most items, placed on a white or black card for background. (As pics below)
3. Most images that are "real", in terms of color,light and shade,are usually too dull and uninteresting for stock images-surreal is nearer the requirement needed,saturated colors attract buyers and clean, clear concepts.
Regards, Ken
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
16.41 KB |
| Viewed: |
1968 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
38.57 KB |
| Viewed: |
1968 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
24.54 KB |
| Viewed: |
1968 Time(s) |
|
|
|
dervishdesign
Joined: 30 Dec 2008
Posts: 12
Location: Italy
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:28 am
| |
Hi, I'm new in SS and I'm so glad to be here...very professional place but...
I understud that you prefer a little bit "iperrealistic" images and I'm working about that.
Anyway I don't understand this reject of files:
Lighting Problems--Purple fringe, blown highlights or lenses flare.
Can you help me?
Regards
DD
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
2.43 KB |
| Viewed: |
1845 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
2.97 KB |
| Viewed: |
1845 Time(s) |
|
|
|
luceluceluce
Joined: 10 Dec 2008
Posts: 1545
Location: mostly
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 1:50 pm
| |
I was sooooo cocky and confident when i submitted my first ten. Really, my best, my best, out of hundreds and hundreds. Not that i was trained in photography or anything... ha ha! no
I think it's the same phenomena that makes 90% of all business managers rate their performance as above average. I think I'm brilliant and know how everything works, and if it all goes pear-shaped then i'm just gonna formulate some convincing and plausible explanation that doesn't involve me taking responsibilty for bad fruityness. really, I really do think this.
And that is why!
Thankyou Shutterstock.
We are lucky lucky lucky to get your lovely slaps that wake us up and clear the delusional fog from our eyes.
But can i take you back to the hilltop, the one where I'm standing (sexily backlit) with a hole ripped through my heart because shutterstock went
1,2,3 all your best
4,5,6 your own precious jewels
7,8,9 crack, tinkle, shatter
10 crash bloody crash out of 10 REJECTED
(primarily for bad lighting and focus)
So, i spent a day doubting my entire judgement about anything and everything, the edges of my soul still flappin' in the wind.
But, you know...
Human beings are amazing creatures. We can track the trajectory of a fast-moving sphere through space-time. And other cool stuff.
And you know, if i have the intelligence to get to my feet and not fall over (not even a lot of robots or computers can do that! what with it involving an inate understanding of physics concepts beyond even the conscious awareness of stephenbowdowntohimhawking) then i can surely
Learn learn learn how to take a decent photograph.
So for the past month I've been out in my garden taking hundreds and trizillions of shots, experimenting, observing, most of the time with my tongue out. I dont know why (about the tongue) (does anyone else make weird photographing faces?.
More than 80gb of raw filage has swamped my laptop in less than 30 days
And, you know what? Not cos i'm special, not cos im brilliant, but just cos i tried and i didnt give up... less than a week ago, shutterstock approved 9/10 of my images and i've now got 47 uploaded and 15 buys!
So im happy i didnt give up and didnt start chasing the drunken mouse in my head. And im happy that shutterstock provides me with a free critique of my work, because i've got no one else who'll do it.
We're all same same but different. But for sure everybody's got something, some unique way of looking.
It's in our hands! What are we gonna do?
Lucy x
|
|
dlacko
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 68
Location: Budapest, Hungary
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:03 pm
| |
I got this: 'Editing--Your illustration has rough edges.'
For four perfectly isolated photos. Should I write into the comment that these are photos or what?
|
|
sorinus
Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Posts: 25
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:34 am
| |
Hi...
It is impossible not to get frustrated... when some of the reason for rejecting are sooo stupid....
Today, you guys reject me pictures with the same subject, and same keywords from a series saying: "Keywords--Your keywords must directly relate to the image (relevancy). Please edit your keyword choices and resubmit." ! The very similar keyword i have used yesterday and they got aproved...
This kind of situation does not make me happy, does not make me go back... reupload... and do the work again..
I dont know if i make any sense here... i am just very frustrated.... PLEASE at least give us a good reason if you reject our pictures... or a chance to correct mistakes if there are any...
|
|
paja6543
Joined: 03 Sep 2008
Posts: 27
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 11:09 am
| |
Hi all,
sorry to say this, but this is really fun... I have to go with those who say that the rejections are for everyone to learn... Sure, sometimes they freak you out and you think that the images are really great until you receive the rejection reasons.
I am not one of you "masters" who have thousands of images in your galleries, I am a relative newbie with some 40 shots but I can say one thing: Shutterstock and Istock really helped me with improving my photography. Yes, it was harsh and yes, it hurt - but you know what? They were right... Yesterday, there was another thread here from a guy who sent a batch of 10 a 9 were rejected. Well, I would probably reject them too. The 10th shot was absolutely cracking and I understand that this guy earns probably quite a lot of money here but as someone told on that thread "the other ones are not quite up to your standard"...
After a few months here, when I am submitting I can guess from about 90% what will be accepted and what won't be (still, worth a try for the others, is it not?) :) So much better than e.g. FT with their haphazard "rejected - quality of the photograph". This certainly won`t help my "growth".
Thank you, guys!
|
|
joshnf
Joined: 07 Feb 2009
Posts: 1
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:52 pm
| |
yeah, I just got a pretty harsh rejection. But I'm pretty good at taking their reasons and applying that to future shots. Thanks for all your post about this. It takes the sting off a little. So in thirty days I'll be back with ones I hope will be all approved.
|
|
zrmedia
Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 7
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:23 pm
| |
People wouldn't get so pissed if it weren't for the ludicrous arrogance of the 30-day wait before people can post again. It's that reason alone that shutterstock is cut out of my moneymaking loop. They've shot themselves in the foot in this manner so many times, they have no idea how much more money they'd be making if they didn't piss off some of the most talented people that come here. I'm making a hundred dollars per day on my WORST days by selling photos and video, and these morons could be part of that if they hadn't insulted me. I won't go into it all in this post, but look for my other posts in this thread if you want to know why dealing with this site is a complete waste of time. The only reason I even come back occasionally is to warn other artists and maybe save them some time and trouble. Cheers.
|
|
turboal1960
Joined: 11 Dec 2008
Posts: 274
Location: Argentina
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:56 pm
| |
| feferoni wrote: | | 710studio wrote: | Actually, I've already had enough of this site. After reading the stories of other people who have had similar experiences, I don't have the time, nor the patience to deal with a site that plays guessing games.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Best of luck to those who have had a better experience with this site. As for this one, moving on is the better choice. |
Well if thats how you feel..but you are making a serious misstake! Stock is HARD and yes, I really feel like tearing my heart and hair out sometimes..but rejections actually make you GROW as a photographer, even though they hurt! If you have no need what so ever to grow in this buisiness (cause im sure youre the best and most creative out there *wink wink*)then maybe you should settle for a more non-commercial career.
Shutterstock has a wonderful community!! Everyone is helpful and never treat you as an amatuer, so dont be afraid to ask! But, you know what they say; 'be nice: get nice replies' Good Luck whatever you decide!
sophie |
I agree with you. SS community is a very open and friendly one. There is lot of information in the posts. And people share it as if they were not competitors.
I will put myself in SS shoes for a moment. From SS point of view is important to get all the images that his customers want to buy. If, in the process, some good images or even some good photographer are missed, it is a pity, but not will change the result.
I get in on the first trial, 3 rejected, 7 OK. I am (or was) amateur, never intended sold a photograph until get in SS. I read carefully the posts, the SS guides, and learned from them. And after that, I submitted my first lot.
Of course, I have some (in my consideration) good images that are rejected for different reasons. And if in the future I get time (and it do not mean be fired from my job, please), I will submit those images to other sites. But I’m not going to quit here.
The only point is that, as English is not my tongue, sometimes I miss the sense of some slang and abbreviations. What “LOL” means?
|
|
raynorshines
Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 9
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:13 pm
| |
| paja6543 wrote: | Hi all,
sorry to say this, but this is really fun... This certainly won`t help my "growth".
Thank you, guys! |
I admit I am frustrated that all but three of the last 75 pics I have submitted have been rejected. At this stage of my life I am fairly used to rejection, but am also aware that it does not always happen for the presented reasons. No, I am not saying there is some great conspiracy out there in SS Reviewer land, but is it possible that some reviewers have agendas different from others and/or perhaps consider themselves on a mission from PhotoGod? From this side of the shutter, I do not see any substantial difference in quality from my earlier submissions. What I do see is a correlation between the percentage of pics rejected and the size of batch submitted; the larger the batch size, the higher rejection rate. It appears like reviewer(s) get in a mode and once they get going with the rejection stamp, don't stop until the batch is done. This seems to happen regardless of content, be it ruins of ancient pyramids, clusters of butterflies or petrochemical facilities. I have taken heed of the advice to look at what is popular and selling and submitted along these lines, without result.
In fairness, I have changed one aspect of my shooting... gone from using SHQ auto settings to using Raw on my Olympus E-500. My understanding was that this would leave less sharpening, noise and saturation trace after the editing process. Though I do rely primarily on camera set-up and composition, I recognize that tweaking is required as well. The reasons for rejection seem to be as varied as they were before I made the change to Raw, but rejection is more frequent. Could there be a relationship?
As things stand I am planning to submit much smaller (under 10) batches less frequently. My early excitement about this site is however beginning to dim. I sure hope this is not because of some over zealous reviewer and is because I need to learn more.
Thanks for any advice
Bruce
|
|
dpfoto
Joined: 19 Mar 2009
Posts: 41
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 2:07 am
| |
Ok, I submited first 10 photos yesterday and than shock today. All 10 photos were rejected. But what's most frustrating is following:
4 of them were rejected cause "Focus--Your image is not in focus or focus is not located where we feel it works best." Without any doubt on every one of them main subject is in focus but without additional .sharpening Doest it mean same picture with just slightlty added sharpening through post processing becomes "good" and without is not "good"?
Last edited by dpfoto on Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:27 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
makukha
Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 1
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:41 pm
| |
I think they are so overloaded with old photos that still sell, that it is not worth our time to please them. Just move on to a less crowded site...
|
|
kenny123
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 3642
Location: Masterton, New Zealand
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:50 am
| |
| zrmedia wrote: | | People wouldn't get so pissed if it weren't for the ludicrous arrogance of the 30-day wait before people can post again. It's that reason alone that shutterstock is cut out of my moneymaking loop. They've shot themselves in the foot in this manner so many times, they have no idea how much more money they'd be making if they didn't piss off some of the most talented people that come here. I'm making a hundred dollars per day on my WORST days by selling photos and video, and these morons could be part of that if they hadn't insulted me. I won't go into it all in this post, but look for my other posts in this thread if you want to know why dealing with this site is a complete waste of time. The only reason I even come back occasionally is to warn other artists and maybe save them some time and trouble. Cheers. |
You're lucky with 30 days,when I started in August 2005,the wait was 90 days,downloads were worth 20 cents-regards, Ken
|
|
| |
|
Shutterstock Forum for Submitters
|
