Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

warrenprice · Joined: 15 Dec 2009 Posts: 419 Location: Central Texas

If you don't like the image just say that. You are going to cause a run on Camera Manufacture Repair Shops. And, there can't be that many Auto Focus units malfunctioning at the same time.
Just say you don't like it. Don't tell us our cameras are broken!!!

Thanks,
I'll get over it. :-)

jmci · Joined: 29 Oct 2006 Posts: 2379 Location: Northern Ireland

biketourist · Joined: 31 Mar 2006 Posts: 172 Location: Central California

Those of us with a long and deep experience with traditional photography have probably been shocked multiple times receiving rejections for reasons that seemed far from the mark. I have to think the review process is a hurried one (even though it's taking a long time lately)and there are only so many pre-made reasons for rejection. If the reviewer just doesn't like your image, he/she has to choose something on the list.

I used to give a lot of credability to comments. Now, I just move on. The reviewers do the best they can — as do we.

warrenprice · Joined: 15 Dec 2009 Posts: 419 Location: Central Texas

peteklinger · Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:12 pm

semmickphoto · Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:08 am

ruxpriencdiam · Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:37 am

semmickphoto · Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:07 am

PaulCowan · Joined: 24 Feb 2005 Posts: 4181 Location: Evolving

Personally, I find it hard to know if it is the reviewer or the image that is wrong when I can't see it.

Isn't the focus rejection something about "soft or not where we think it should be". Autofocus units don't necessarily grab the right bit and it is also possible to get camera shake regardless of the AF.

I shoot a lot of film. There's nothing wrong with it, certainly no need to have lens flare or aberrations any more than digital does and I haven't the faintest idea what the reference to cropping is about. It's certainly difficult to use it for microstock but at least half the problems come from having to home-scan it, as pro drum scanning is prohibitively expensive. The film shots I have here sell better, on average, than digital - I don't know why.

aquafish · Joined: 10 Oct 2007 Posts: 81

Do you have a nice rear end - or is it best that it is out of focus?

chbaum · Joined: 19 Sep 2010 Posts: 386 Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

Similar reaction by me at this very moment...

Just got back a batch of 15 images. Two accepted, the rest rejected - mostly because of focus.

I checked. I checked hard, believe me, because this was a big vacation. I had learned a lot from last year's bad landscape images. I had f11 all the time, sunshine like hell, and I think my images are sharp where they should be (the palm trees in the foreground for instance, the nose and eyes of the giant tortoise and so on).

What was accepted was a macro shot of a gecko with quite some shallow DOF. Its head is in focus (its nose is slightly soft), and its feet are completely OOF - can't be avoided with macros I guess.

But the approved beach scene is really strange: I must have been drunk when I submitted it (and I NEVER drink!)... In contrast to all the rejected photos, some leaves at the very lower left corner are tack sharp. The beach, the shore, the water, the boat, the forest, the hills behind them are OOF, and the rocks beneath show purple fringing like I've never seen before (my first attempt with my new UWA). I herewith declare: It was a mistake to overlook this and to submit this photo! But that's the one that got accepted... 8O

Guys, this can't be true! I know I should post this stuff and crops to make my point. But the differences are so ridiculously obvious, I simply can't believe it. I really consider resubmitting the unaltered images just again.

That was my personal shitstorm of the day. Sorry. Had to be. Good night.

Best regards,

Christian

maxim1110 · Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:38 am

Well that's the thing. That photo looks like a photo that could sell really well, so they'll accept it anyway, regardless of focus. I recently had a batch of around 15 images rejected because of focus. I zoomed in at maximum in Lightroom, sharp. Exported from Lightroom, tried again, sharp. Submitted, with note for reviewer that they were in fact in focus so that he could go to hell with his out of focus excuse (I didn't use those words, actually ;) ), and they were rejected again. The funny thing is that I've got photos accepted that were rather soft (because I didn't use a tripod, for example), whereas these photos were tack sharp. As sharp as a photo can get using a 14MP camera.

Also, I had some photos rejected because of noise. Complete rubbish of course, because the Nikon D3100 doesn't create noise at ISO400. It was snowing at the time though, so the reviewer must have mistaken snowflakes for noise.

What worries me about all this is that it keeps happening, to more and more people. Someone here said they were doing as good as they can. They clearly are not. If the only reason for rejecting a photo is the fact that the reviewer doesn't like it, it shouldn't get rejected. I'm personally not a big fan of portrait photography, but I'm not gonna reject every single portrait photo I see, am I?

musicphoto · Joined: 06 Nov 2005 Posts: 164 Location: Denver, Colorado

The focus rejects are out of hand here. I had a large number rejected in my last batch for focus... yet every other agency found them acceptable. And it isn't that SS has higher standards. this is a problem for me as I shoot a lot of food, which is usually shot close up and will leave some areas of the image out of focus... something that is completely acceptable with food as long as the correct part of the image is in focus. Also some food lacks sharp crisp edges and this seems to guarantee an out of focus rejection even though it is how the food itself appears. I even bought more powerful strobes so I could shoot them at the smallest aperture my lenses are capable of to get a greater depth of field... yet this creates the problem of being out of the sweet spot of the lens for the sharpest picture.

this seems to be certain reviewers as I will have images that are a bit soft passed in one batch, and ones that are tack sharp rejected by others.

Regardless it is frustrating to have images that would be accepted by a magazine or ad agency for hundreds or thousands per shoot rejected by an outfit that gives me a return of 30 cents per download....

It's a little inverted.

chbaum · Joined: 19 Sep 2010 Posts: 386 Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

Yeah, great... they shifted to "Noise" now. Got 26 out of 27 rejected, mainly for focus and noise. They're all from a series of which others have been approved easily. ISO 100 or 200. Noise is hardly anywhere to be found for me.

The one accepted was a mere experiment, a leopard shot through the bars of its cage (which can be seen in slightly oof parts of his fur). His whiskers drown in the blown highlights of the dull sky. Okay, I'm happy they took it. I like the composition. But technically, it's not the best of the whole batch.

Best regards,

Christian