MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Strange and harsh reviews of uploads  (Read 4757 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 19, 2008, 22:35 »
0
Hi everyone,

Despite not being one of the "Big 6", BigStock has always been my best moneymaker.  They are good about accepting the majority of photos that I have uploaded in the past, even ones that I think aren't particularly good, have limited commercial use, etc.

For example, in the past they accepted several animal photos that I know were horribly overexposed, and people were buying them for whatever reason (shortage of such pics, maybe).

However, lately I have been using a better camera (upgraded from 4MP to 10MP), more careful composition, etc.  I recently uploaded what I thought were twelve of the best photos I have ever taken (great range from landscapes to good commercial subjects to special interest objects, etc), and ALL 12 got rejected today!

They gave the same reason for all 12 being rejected:  Reason: Blurry: Image is not very crisp or is blurred when viewed at full size.

I know for a fact that these images (and their subjects) are not blurred AT ALL when viewed even up to 100% or 200%!  One or two incorporate extremely deliberate DOF (in my description I even say "this item is shot clearly in the foreground, with a softer view of X in the background") to make it clear that this was deliberately to bring focus to the subject, etc.

This is very frustrating.  I am considering re-uploading in a little while but splitting these photos up to do them one at a time.  Do they have a better chance of getting through one at a time without one certain reviewer rejecting them ALL for his/her personal taste?  I know that some of these would be very good sellers, and they have all been accepted at FT and IS, which is much more uncommon for me.

Any other thoughts or similar experiences?


tan510jomast

« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2008, 00:10 »
0
except for a selected few, i find most would consider selective focus as "blur", or "out of focus". not sure why, but i guess that seems to be the rule rather than exception.
other " compositional " hazard is "high key" images , that are many times rejected as "blown highlight" or "poor contrast".
go figure, but i suggest you stick to the plain all sharp in focus, and all
balanced level and average contrast shots,  for microstock, and leave the artistic compositions for macro sites.  it'll save you a lot of frustrations in the future ULs.
don't take it too personal. as you said, "it's just one reviewer(s) personal taste". and you are so right about that.
not worth the pain trying to read their minds.
chins up, it's not going to shake your world apart!  8)


« Last Edit: July 20, 2008, 00:15 by tan510jomast »

« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2008, 00:17 »
0
here's an example of one of the photos I'm talking about (accepted quickly to FT):

http://www.fotolia.com/id/8368477

PaulieWalnuts

  • You talkin' to me?
« Reply #3 on: July 20, 2008, 01:51 »
0
I looked at in on FT and the focus point looks soft to me.

« Reply #4 on: July 20, 2008, 02:11 »
0
Sorry, PaulieWalnuts, but did you mean that in a good or a bad way?  Do you mean soft as in too blurry, or as in alright?

« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2008, 02:27 »
0
I had issues with selective focus in a some shots lately , I don t about BigStock yet but all these kind of shots were rejected by SS for example, IS took some of them . I like selective focus though :)

« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2008, 02:40 »
0
Are you using the standard settings on the camera, and a kit lens?

I have found with my 30D I had to tune the in camera sharpness because it was too soft.

« Reply #7 on: July 20, 2008, 03:02 »
0
I did shoot these this way on purpose as I liked the effect ... but maybe it's just me!!

« Reply #8 on: July 20, 2008, 03:46 »
0
Oh my goodness. The term "Pay back is a bitch" plays true here in your case!
"I have uploaded in the past, even ones that I think aren't particularly good, have limited commercial use, etc."

So...you got away with getting images accepted that should have perhaps been rejected by your own admission.
And now it's catching up with you. Oh well, that's life. "Take the good with the bad" ...etc.

I think you stated you are "Considering" uploading them again. I think you have sub-conscientiously  already really convinced yourself
YOU WILL upload them again. It's your way of saying "Your wrong, these are good images".... "Look at them again"

It's obvious that you are frustrated, and that you are writing about it here in this forum as an outlet to vent that frustration.
You went and spent all that money for a new camera when all along the solution to your problem was available for $3.95.
http://microstockpix.com/supplies/page6/page6.html

If I may, (and I mean no malice, or intend any offense) I looked at your images and I think though may be acceptable by some,
generally they lack any real commercial value.

I too have some really bad images also in my portfolio (maybe not as bad as yours though) and I used the Subliminal Plug-in to get them approved.
Trouble is getting them approved did not guarantee anyone would actually buy them. So they sit gathering dust.

Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason



PaulieWalnuts

  • You talkin' to me?
« Reply #9 on: July 20, 2008, 05:54 »
0
Sorry, PaulieWalnuts, but did you mean that in a good or a bad way?  Do you mean soft as in too blurry, or as in alright?

Meaning I'm seeing what BigStock is seeing.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2008, 06:29 by PaulieWalnuts »

« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2008, 06:15 »
0
You have some very nice images but I agree with Miz that they have very limited commercial  value.  I think that the reviewers are a lot tougher on  the technical aspect of images that aren't good stock images. Have a look through magazines and advertising posters to get ideas of what sort of images are needed.
Good luck

« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2008, 08:17 »
0
For example, in the past they accepted several animal photos that I know were horribly overexposed, and people were buying them for whatever reason (shortage of such pics, maybe).

You shouldn't have uploaded these shots in the first place.  If YOU thought they were bad, then they didn't even pass YOUR quality control.

tan510jomast

« Reply #12 on: July 20, 2008, 11:30 »
0
I would stop trying to second guess which images will be accepted or rejected and just upload what you want to be proud of having your name attached to.
 also, follow the advice of some here to study what sells and decide if you want to take those kinds of images.
if not, move on to other sites to find those with your type of images that are selling there,  and upload to them.
fotographer and Miz are right, in saying that getting accepted is only the first stage, selling is the main thing.
if , like many of my images, you find that you are in a niche market,
either you should decide to go elsewhere, or be patient and see if these
"niche" images sell over the long-term .
all the advice given by everyone is valid. it will help you to avoid
being disappointed . but you have to know what you really intend to do :
have photos accepted? have photos sold? make sellable photos?
 

« Reply #13 on: July 20, 2008, 12:32 »
0
With BigStock flower shots must be technically perfect and outstanding to view or they will be deleted. (got too many of them)

Blur! If it is blurry anyplace in the image, the shot will most likely be deleted. Shallow DOF, misplaced focus, subject moved, etc., etc.

If you add a note to the description: NOTE: Shallow DOF focus is on xxx You may get the reviewer to accept it. Sometimes if they feel like it. ;D

-Larry

« Reply #14 on: July 20, 2008, 14:39 »
0
For example, in the past they accepted several animal photos that I know were horribly overexposed, and people were buying them for whatever reason (shortage of such pics, maybe).

You shouldn't have uploaded these shots in the first place.  If YOU thought they were bad, then they didn't even pass YOUR quality control.

The entire photo wasn't awful; the lighting could have been better.  One photo I'm thinking of in particular is one of my most viewed and downloaded on several sites.  So it has value to someone--to a lot of someones in fact!

« Reply #15 on: July 21, 2008, 00:48 »
0
For example, in the past they accepted several animal photos that I know were horribly overexposed, and people were buying them for whatever reason (shortage of such pics, maybe).

You shouldn't have uploaded these shots in the first place.  If YOU thought they were bad, then they didn't even pass YOUR quality control.

The entire photo wasn't awful; the lighting could have been better.  One photo I'm thinking of in particular is one of my most viewed and downloaded on several sites.  So it has value to someone--to a lot of someones in fact!

Unable to locate any animal images in your BigStock portfolio that had any DLs.  Did you pull them off?  fred 

PhotoDuneMicrostock Insider

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
13 Replies
3150 Views
Last post October 18, 2006, 15:26
by a.k.a.-tom
3 Replies
1322 Views
Last post February 17, 2007, 11:32
by madelaide
4 Replies
1390 Views
Last post April 18, 2008, 20:51
by Calamity_John
2 Replies
1073 Views
Last post September 05, 2008, 14:19
by epantha
12 Replies
6741 Views
Last post March 16, 2011, 19:59
by leremy

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors