new stock photo website "shutterstock"

11/08/2004 06:08:26 PM · #302

I'm so happy just got in at itsock at the first atempt that feels really great! :)

Tamron SP AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical IF for Nikon

11/08/2004 10:38:53 PM · #303

Originally posted by melking23:

Originally posted by dartompkins:
Lately everything I submit is being rejected for "Too many like this on site not needed right now." Is anyone else getting this? Perhaps they should tell us what they DO want. I thought my uploads were fairly different????

Maybe you should contact support!

I did, but I haven't heard anything. Kinda makes me wonder if the initial downloads were real or just a way to get us all interested. I had several and then nothing for several days and now everything I upload is rejected?

Paige

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

11/08/2004 10:52:08 PM · #304

Originally posted by dartompkins:

Originally posted by melking23:

Originally posted by dartompkins:
Lately everything I submit is being rejected for "Too many like this on site not needed right now." Is anyone else getting this? Perhaps they should tell us what they DO want. I thought my uploads were fairly different????

Maybe you should contact support!

I did, but I haven't heard anything. Kinda makes me wonder if the initial downloads were real or just a way to get us all interested. I had several and then nothing for several days and now everything I upload is rejected?

My uploads have been consistantly accepted at around 92%, that hasn't changed from the first day I started uploading over two weeks ago. I think that they have received so many uploads recently that they may be getting a lot of simliar shots now.

Tamron SP AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical IF for Nikon

11/08/2004 10:57:16 PM · #305

Originally posted by Paige:

Originally posted by dartompkins:

Originally posted by melking23:

Originally posted by dartompkins:
Lately everything I submit is being rejected for "Too many like this on site not needed right now." Is anyone else getting this? Perhaps they should tell us what they DO want. I thought my uploads were fairly different????

Maybe you should contact support!

I did, but I haven't heard anything. Kinda makes me wonder if the initial downloads were real or just a way to get us all interested. I had several and then nothing for several days and now everything I upload is rejected?

My uploads have been consistantly accepted at around 92%, that hasn't changed from the first day I started uploading over two weeks ago. I think that they have received so many uploads recently that they may be getting a lot of simliar shots now.

Well, I thought that might be the case, but I did a search for my latest subject and found 9 pictures. I wouldn't think 9 shots would be too much, but who's to say.

Edit to say somebody must like the ones they let through. I had another downloaded this evening.

Message edited by author 2004-11-08 23:03:04.

Sonifo

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

11/08/2004 11:31:19 PM · #306

Is anyone else having a hard time getting logged in on shutterstock?

11/08/2004 11:37:58 PM · #307

Yap i'm havind internet server error... and it says that i don't have the cookies enabled so i tried in netscape and it dos not enter. :(

Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM

11/08/2004 11:40:21 PM · #308

Its working now.

melking

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III

11/09/2004 09:34:03 AM · #309

bump

shutterstock

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

11/09/2004 12:15:25 PM · #310

Should be working now - we added some new features.
Adding yet another server also!
Jon

Sonifo

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

11/09/2004 12:32:39 PM · #311

I took some pictures yesterday at full size and when I got done editing them they were less then 2 mb. Anyone else have this problem? Oh, I saved it at the best quality as possible.

moodville

Nikon D100

11/09/2004 12:44:57 PM · #312

Originally posted by Sonifo:

I took some pictures yesterday at full size and when I got done editing them they were less then 2 mb. Anyone else have this problem? Oh, I saved it at the best quality as possible.

You may have cropped too much.

Tamron SP AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical IF for Nikon

11/09/2004 01:27:01 PM · #313

I have not received a response on my inquiry about rejections. Several of my photos have been rejected due to too many like it right now. Can I get some info about what types of things are needed? Can anyone share what types of shots they have been uploading and getting approved?

Thanks.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/09/2004 01:30:54 PM · #314

I posted the same request in their forums but haven't heard anything back. I suppose they are just very busy.

jbsmithana

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

11/09/2004 01:44:36 PM · #315

Originally posted by melking23:

You can Lease the Canon 20D for $79.61 a month Canadian at vistek.ca

Melissa

Darn! Got all excited here and then found out they only lease in Canada.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/09/2004 01:51:43 PM · #316

I have been approved in every image. Its been houses, animals, objects. just that and all 14 were approved.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

11/09/2004 02:50:10 PM · #317

I'm at 26/28 approval right now with a few that just got approved. I've been trying up hit a variety of topics, although most of my actual downloads have been for cloud/sky type pictures.

Mostly I've been trying to close in on and isolate the subject better so that I have adequate pixels and don't have to crop too much. I try to carry one of my cameras with me almost all the time, and I keep an eye out for interesting or unusual things.

marbo

Nikon D5000

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

11/09/2004 02:54:19 PM · #318

I just noticed that everyone gets a Quality Ratio on their uploads.
So the better the ratio the quicker you should get your pics reviewed.
So far mine is, Quality Ratio: 17.67 which comes from 53/3 uploads/rejects. I`m very pleased with this site so far $4 in only a week with a handful of pics.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/09/2004 02:59:00 PM · #319

Originally posted by marbo:

I just noticed that. Personally, it seems like a kind of crappy idea. I've had a number of photos rejected but only one was because of the actual quality of the photo - it wasn't contrasty enough. The rest were because they felt there were too many on the site. How am I to know at what number they draw the cutoff? It seems to vary greatly depending on the subject. So now, because I'm not able to tell that three of one item is enough while 800 of another is not too much, I deserve slower treatment than others? If a. my ratio was poor because I was submitting poor quality photos or b. there was a list of things they didn't want and I kept submitting them, then I would have no problem with this. But as it stands, I'm punished for not being a mindreader.

Tamron SP AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical IF for Nikon

11/09/2004 03:00:56 PM · #320

My last reject was a lime green parachute against a blue sky. I thought it would make a great stock photo and could see lots of use for it. It was rejected due to too many on the sight. There were nine parachutes. I really don't see how that could be too many. I am wondering what method is being used to reject. Perhaps they are going by key words and I am using a key word that is too common. I would really like to know what is up especially since the addition of the ratio thing. I am uploading perfectly fine photos and getting a lousy ratio.

Message edited by author 2004-11-09 15:01:40.

theodor38

Nikon D70

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

11/09/2004 03:03:52 PM · #321

i am not gonna say wheter quality ratio is bad or good but even people with low rating shouldnt really fear. because they approve photographs with at most 2 days turnaround.. i think it is a very respectable turnaround rate in this type of business..

lwkimages

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/09/2004 03:04:21 PM · #322

I agree with mk. The 'Quality Ratio' isn't a good idea, at least not in its present form. While I've only uploaded a handful so far, I've had 4 of my last 5 rejected - none for quality reasons.

Jon, is there a way to either a) include in your formula only those rejected because of poor quality, or b) give us a good way to determine ahead of time whether there are already "too many" of a particular type of image.

Message edited by author 2004-11-09 15:05:32.

marbo

Nikon D5000

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

11/09/2004 03:10:42 PM · #323

My rejections have all been for to many/ not needed. One was for a tug boat of which theres only 1 photo on the site. I`m not complaining though as it`s still the easiest of all the 3 stock sites i use to get accepted.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/09/2004 03:11:54 PM · #324

I try to remember that we are all essentially beta-testers for this site -- it's being built-up as we go along. I find it remarkable how quickly many user-initiated suggestions get implemented.

I think it would be helpful if more of the comments were at least phrased more dispassionately and with less of a defensive tone ... this new "rating" system is obviously in its earliest testing phase. Like "Helpful Comments" at DPC it may turn out to be helpful or meaningless in the long run.

Remember too that the new photo reviewer (Andrea) has only been on the job a week, and it's going to take some time to get more consistent evaluations.