Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

angelawaye · Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 11:45 am

I think it pushes me to work harder and now my rejections are far less. I don't think it is intentional though. If they do accept "crap" images, they don't sell (or very little) so it is not just about getting something approved for me.

There is a "consistent inconsistency" though. I may reuse an older image from my port in a new way and it gets rejected for white balance or lighting. Doesn't make sense.

I just stick to 5 - 8 photos per batch and wait until those are approved/rejected before I do another batch because reviews are different.

We just have to work around it I guess.
I have to find another rock now ...

digigandalf · Joined: 11 Jun 2005 Posts: 5398 Location: Twinsburg, OH

They sometimes make me want to throw a rock....

rudyumans · Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 12:17 pm

Do reviewers push us?

Maybe over the edge sometimes (almost)

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

Well, I was just looking at my latest rejection and thinking, "Yes, I do see your point, but it would still be useful for some people. However, in future I can take more care to get past that 'limited by composition' issue." That was when I wondered if they were just being ultra picky or if there was an ulterior motive.

Anyway, I should have known that mentioning the word "reviewer" would send people into a apoplectic rage.

rudyumans · Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 1:28 pm

Paul, I just don't think that the reviewers are pushing some people or encouraging others. I also think that if they did, it wouldn't be right. Everybody should be treated equal. On the other hand, a fluffy white dog comes to mind.

You never know what motivates people to act irrationally sometimes. A fight with their spouse, their 18 year old gives them hell, a hard party last night, just a bad day. Who knows?

wiml · Joined: 10 May 2011 Posts: 896

hhltdave5 · Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 9:08 am

I don't really think it is true Paul. If you think of all the images a reviewer sees I don't think they pay too much attention to the submitter. I think they know some of us because of the time we have been here or our presence with Shutterstock but if you think of all the tens of thousands of submitters I think they are just faceless names.

I do think that they as a general rule change their policies on what is acceptable and raise the bar that way but to me it still comes down to the specific reviewer. Think of all the pretty damn good images from top notch photographers that get rejected but yet some very marginal images at best get approved.

I still hold that there are some reviewers who hardly anything is good enough for them.

rinder99 · Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 10:03 am

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

Ah, well, while it would have been unfair to think people were getting pushed to develop their skill level, it would still have been nice to think that maybe somebody cared. Another off-beat idea for the dustbin!

scotrus96 · Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 3:36 pm

rejected with :
For future illustration submissions, select â??Yesâ? in the â??Illust./Clip-Art:â? drop down menu

is that a swearing?

red06 · Joined: 05 Feb 2007 Posts: 1273

who cares about SS?

apotterdd · Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 4:33 pm

red if you're unhappy no one's forcing to keep you here and thread spamming isn't the answer.

I don't think it's the reviewers job to push us to make us better if that was the case then the rejection reasons would be a little more detailed than what we get.

For me I don't feel like I'm being pushed as I already know I can do better and I am doing better than what I was when I started doing this 3 years ago. There is always room for advancement no matter what level you're at.

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

apotterdd · Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 4:41 pm

Ah I see Paul and that does make more sense to me now.

angelawaye · Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 6:48 am

Sometimes it is a nudge and sometimes it is a kick in the face ...