|
|
Welcome, Anonymous (Profile, Private Messages)
Having trouble signing into the forums? Please [ logout ] and log back in.
 Log in
| Author |
Message |
triceratops
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 6661
Location: The other Nevada
|
Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:23 pm
|  |
| usc1985 wrote: | I was surprised when three photos that I have on isotckphoto, which have been downloaded, were rejected by Shutterstock.
I have one of a "Don't Tread On Me" flag that was taken in the middle of a cloudless sunny sky, and it was rejected for "Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect." I was suprised because there aren't any shadows (full sun), and when looking at the photo, the while stipes of the flag are perectly white.
I would appreciate other's comments so that I can figure out how to correct the photo.
Thafor any input. |
The only way to tell is to see the image. Post it below on it's own thread so we can see and make comment.
BTW, Shutterstock doesn't want anyone using competitor's full names in posts. OK to use initials (IS), just not the full name.
|
|
cwhitesell
Joined: 19 Jul 2009
Posts: 6
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 10:05 pm
| |
When photos are reviewed, is everything checked in the photo before making a judgement? For example, is the noise, focus, composition checked and approved, but only the lighting is criticized? Or is the first flaw that is seen the one that is pointed out?
|
|
triceratops
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 6661
Location: The other Nevada
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:00 am
| |
| cwhitesell wrote: | | When photos are reviewed, is everything checked in the photo before making a judgement? For example, is the noise, focus, composition checked and approved, but only the lighting is criticized? Or is the first flaw that is seen the one that is pointed out? |
Generally first flaw.
|
|
mihaim
Joined: 23 Jan 2009
Posts: 9
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:04 am
| |
Hello, these images were rejected for LCV. What do you think? Thx.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
126.51 KB |
| Viewed: |
1309 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
Download |
| Filename: |
IMG_4761.jpg |
| Filesize: |
138.58 KB |
| Downloaded: |
74 Time(s) |
|
|
martijnk
Joined: 07 Sep 2009
Posts: 53
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:44 pm
| |
To me it's very simple:
I want my photos to sell, I don't want them on the site so others just can look at them.
The reviewers have reviewed millions of photos and shutterstock is a success so I assume they know what they're doing.
So I suck it up and will try again.
|
|
tntgraphics
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 203
Location: www.tntphotographicmemory.com
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 4:40 pm
| |
| shatteredlens wrote: | They do on occasion do a sweep of people's galleries, but for the most part they expect you to do it.
And yes, good morning hfng |
Good luck getting people to do that. I created a post awhile back asking people to delete just ONE image from their galleries to help clean things up. I got about 4 responses, and NOBODY deleted a photo! :)
|
|
krakatil
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 1
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:36 am
| |
| usc1985 wrote: | I was surprised when three photos that I have on isotckphoto, which have been downloaded, were rejected by Shutterstock.
I have one of a "Don't Tread On Me" flag that was taken in the middle of a cloudless sunny sky, and it was rejected for "Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect." I was suprised because there aren't any shadows (full sun), and when looking at the photo, the while stipes of the flag are perectly white.
I would appreciate other's comments so that I can figure out how to correct the photo.
Thafor any input. |
The thing is very simple. No human being looks at the submitted images, not at the first stage at least. Based on my rejected images, it is quite clear that everything is done by a computer program setting certain filters. My B&W image was rejected for "incorrect white balance", silhouette was considered "underexposure", and the sun in the background became "lens flare". Everything not having a big distinct object on the forground was rejected for "composition". Summarizing my conclusions, the filter program checks that there is:
Sharp focus for the most of the image;
One to several distinct large objects;
Even lighting, no sharp blacks and whites;
Sufficiently saturated colors, medium-high contrast;
Maybe something else.
If your image makes it through these computer filters, then MAYBE a human will have a glance at it. So no point being upset by the non-existing "mean reviewers".
|
|
dompr
Joined: 03 Mar 2009
Posts: 7
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:21 pm
| |
Many photos are denied referring to the noise. Maybe someone will tell where this noise? "At other banks load without problems. Maybe would have been a decent answer, we do not need this picture!
View Full Size - http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/5SI75UAOMuqx5-XDc4DkkQ?feat=directlink
| Description: |
| Noise--Noise, film grain, over-sharpening, or artifacts at full size. |
|
| Filesize: |
70.29 KB |
| Viewed: |
751 Time(s) |
|
|
|
triceratops
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 6661
Location: The other Nevada
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:26 pm
| |
I don't know about noise, but the isolation edges are quite rough and you've cut off parts of the bird on the right and the platter at the bottom. You'll get a lot more feedback if you post this in the critiques portion of this thread, rather than up in the "sticky" rejection thread. That's down below in the main section of this forum.
|
|
olikingy
Joined: 05 Nov 2009
Posts: 1
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:33 pm
| |
| bichon wrote: | The only thing i would like to see is a less vague reason for rejection. This would help the newbies and those who are learning to 'see' potential problems.
when the reason is 'hazing, artifacts or autotraced' (or something along those lines, i can't remember) ... it is not always clear if only one of the possiblities had been the issue. for example, for a noise or artifact reason, maybe there is noise .. but it is in the acceptable range.. and it is the artifact issue which is causing the rejection. sometimes i see a post questioning a rejection. one person may see a noise problem, and another may not and pin the rejection on one of the other rejection reasons.. but it would nice to know exactly what the REVEIEWER was rejecting.
no ? |
You should try submitting to fotolia, they have about 3 options for rejection like; Aesthetic Qualities or Technical Difficulties, you pretty much have to guess.
|
|
sierpinski
Joined: 13 Nov 2009
Posts: 5
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:08 pm
| |
Speaking as a brand-new SS uploader, I have to agree with this. I wasn't happy to see my rejections, but the reasons given have made me realize that there's much improvement that needs to be made. One of my mistakes was going for the more artistic shots, but while reading this forum it donned on me that isn't the point of this site. I was so concerned about finding good images to upload that I didn't think about whether or not they'd be valuable to anyone.
It's definitely given me a direction to go towards with my photography education. The people I see posting here seem very supportive, so hopefully when I show up with a completely newbie question that hospitality will shine once again!
Thanks for opening my eyes, I hope to be able to contribute on a higher level very soon.
Tim
| photonotebook wrote: | | I am relatively new to SS, and I have realized that rejections however harsh they are help me become a better photographer, make me more self-conscious of what I shoot, how I shoot it, why I shoot it and so on. As well as making me realize that there is sooo much room for improvement in virtually every area. Ultimately, I've learned not to care about my ego as much because it's not my ego that's on the line - it's the quality of my portfolio that's on the line, and I'm thankful to SS both for rejections and approvals. Failures too should push us to strive to be better. And they should teach us, before blaming others, to be pragmatic and honest about quality of our own work - something that very few people can do. Duh, just my $0.02 for what it's worth. |
|
|
| |
|
  |
Page 16 of 16
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16
|
Shutterstock Forum for Contributors
|
