Shutterstock rejection -- puzzled

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 68495
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 68495

Guest
I submitted this picture to Shutterstock for a first image and it was rejected with the reason 'the main subject is not in focus'. Does it not look like it's in focus, I can't see what they are talking about as if I blow any picture up enough it will look fuzzy? I submitted the same picture to Alamy with two other photos and they were all accepted without demur. Click to see the full-sized image on Flickr. Your comments would help me a great deal.

Beautiful(Dusted) (1 of 1) by gorgon703, on Flickr
 
•


I can see their point… but they did not tell you everything,
they only gave a major point why it is not accepted.

In this case, the sharpness is ok for web but not for print
and print IS their market… so they want maximum reso-
lution (300ppi), maximum size (up to A2) maximum natu-
ral sharpness, advanced tonal taming etc. Client should
be seduced without thinking he will have to heavily repro-
cess the file.

I am since years under contract with agents and volume
is yet an other important aspect to your image bank. HTH
 
I have had a couple of images accepted by Shutterstock and the Sam image rejected by Adobe Stock - figure out that one?
 
Actually, I've gone off Shutterstock completely now and not for photographic reasons. They require positive identification either with a driving licence or a passport. I submitted my driving licence image first and they rejected it saying it was out of date and if they had looked more closely they would have seen it was my HGV entitlement that was out of date as I'm not renewing it because I've retired. I then submitted an image of my passport with the passport number blanked out and they said thye couldn't accept it because it had to be complete in all details -- well there is no way I'm going to give details like my passport number to an American company (or any other nationality for that matter) for something as simple as submitting a picture. I don't suppose they have lost anything by rejecting both my pictures and me personally but then I don't think I've lost anything by not joining them -- it was only a whim anyway.

I might try submitting all the same images to Adobe Stock out of curiosity and see how they go there. Photography is so subjective, which is nice in most ways but damned annoying in others. As I've said, Alamy accepted all my images without a problem (of course that could reflect on Alamy's standards I suppose).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ShinySideUp said:
Actually, I've gone off Shutterstock completely now and not for photographic reasons. They require positive identification either with a driving licence or a passport.
Click to expand...

So what happens if you're like me and don't have a driving licence or a passport?
 
Kodiak Qc said:
n this case, the sharpness is ok for web but not for print
and print
Click to expand...
How can you tell? You can only view a web version of the image...

Kodiak Qc said:
so they want maximum reso-
lution (300ppi), maximum size (up to A2) maximum natu-
ral sharpness
Click to expand...
Shutter stock requirements are not that strict.... min file size of 4mp, Max of 50mp and sRGB, they appear to be concerned with the pixel dimensions (correctly) rather than the ppi resolution.

I do agree there may be other factors but honestly I do not think quality, from the image we can view is an issue, perhaps similarity to other images on their books?
 
Stay off the microstock. Please. It will maybe pay you $5 a month (if you are lucky and sell quite a few) but this further kills the market for the rest of us. Is your time and all prospects worth those $5????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top