Crestock Rejects?

cybernesco

« on: October 22, 2008, 16:05 »

#link

Hi guys

Crestock just rejected 32 photos out of 34. Most of them rejected for bad isolation, a few for missing model releases, two for sensor dust and two for over filtered. I know that I did not miss any model releases.

I invite you to judge for yourself and comment. I created a gallery called “Crestock Rejects” where you can evaluate all the 32 photos at up to 80% its original size by clicking on “X3Large” on the right side. A pop-up submenu will appear by dragging your mouse cursor on the right. On most of them I indicated the reason for rejection in the bottom.

(The gallery is no longer accessible. The link has been edited out as this thread has reached its conclusion. See my last comment in the bottom)

Thank you for your time. Denis


« Last Edit: October 23, 2008, 21:11 by cybernesco »	Ignore \| Logged

Eco

« Reply #1 on: October 22, 2008, 16:39 »

#link

Those images are fantastic. Crazy rejections. I wonder what's up with Crestock? Irrational rejections, very long review times (some of my images pending review for 2 weeks now), reports of delayed payments, forum still not functional (according to the notice it should have been up by August). All bad signs. Huh


	Ignore \| Logged

borg

« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2008, 16:48 »

#link

Today Crestock reject 27/28 of my photos...
I am frustrated...

Also lots of "bad isolation"....

But my intention isn't always cutting subjects from background with clipping path or anything else.
Sometimes I want objects on a CLEAR background with shadows and something like that...
I didn't put category that is isolation with or without path.


« Last Edit: October 22, 2008, 16:50 by borg »	Ignore \| Logged

cybernesco

« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2008, 16:58 »

#link

Quote from: Eco on October 22, 2008, 16:39

Thank you for your positive comment. Wow, your wildlife photos are totally awesome!!! Denis


« Last Edit: October 22, 2008, 17:10 by cybernesco »	Ignore \| Logged

cybernesco

« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2008, 17:03 »

#link

Quote from: borg on October 22, 2008, 16:48

Yes I understand what you are saying. I find it better to have a very pale, hardly noticitable, small and very smooth shadow under the subject to give that 3d effect. Else the subject look like floating in space.


	Ignore \| Logged

Karimala

« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2008, 19:19 »

#link

I've had images pending since late August! Angry


	Ignore \| Logged

cybernesco

« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2008, 19:35 »

#link

Quote from: Karimala on October 22, 2008, 19:19

I've had images pending since late August! Angry

Same for me. They were pending for two months and all of a sudden 32 rejected out of 34. I don't produce in volume as I take pride, time and a lot of effort in every single photo. It does pay as I average 1.50 - 2.00 per photo per month while averaging all sites. I guess Crestock is just not part of that average for me. Especially when they missed out on those photos. I am certainly not gonna change my way of doing things if this has worked well for me so far. Crestock act like if they were on top of the tree, but they really are at the bottom of it. Denis


	Ignore \| Logged

josh_crestock

« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2008, 02:37 »

#link

At Crestock we do not require a clipping path to accompany isolated images. Your images should not be rejected if they are not on a 100% white background. Customer feedback suggests that a off-white background is often more useful, anyway. Although what images will be rejected for is poor isolation work, with uneven backgrounds, sharp edges or images that look too much as though they have just been cutout of anywhere.

@cybernesco, I have briefly had a look at your images, we will take another look here. I'm not sure exactly what the issue has been without looking closer at it. I will contact you when I know more.

@karimala. Seriously?! We're dealing with a large backlog of work, but like mentioned before, want to still give dedicated attention to every individual image. Sorry for delays, we will have this sorted out in the near future.

@Eco, the forum is a project that keeps getting deprioritized. This is coming very shortly, although most development at crestock recently has been behind the scenes, making life easier for buyers and drumming up some sales. The signs aren't maybe so bad, and the visible signs, we are aware of and will straighten things out as soon as possible.

Josh - The Crestock Team


	Logged

runamock

« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2008, 03:14 »

#link

Similar situation for me… files sitting in the pending folder for weeks and then today a blanket rejection. Many of the pictures submitted had already been accepted into Fotolia who are not exactly known for their ease of acceptance, but at least they can back up their policy with sales.

I think enough is enough…it’s all just words Josh.


	Ignore \| Logged

Smithore

« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2008, 04:27 »

#link

Good pictures Cybernesco,
But you will not earn 0.25$ with them on Crestock, the most generous microstock site of all!!!
Don't worry anyway, you can submit them at Shutterstock, one year at Crestock = one day at Shutterstock.
Don't waste your time with Crestock.


	Ignore \| Logged

sharpshot

« Reply #10 on: October 23, 2008, 05:39 »

#link

I don't mind that crestock rejects more images than some sites but I can't justify my time when they pay $0.25 for subs downloads. Most of the other sites have raised their commissions this year and crestock is now too far behind. Raise the commission over $0.30 and I will start uploading again.


	Ignore \| Logged

cybernesco

« Reply #11 on: October 23, 2008, 05:43 »

#link

Quote from: josh_crestock on October 23, 2008, 02:37

@cybernesco, I have briefly had a look at your images, we will take another look here. I'm not sure exactly what the issue has been without looking closer at it. I will contact you when I know more.

Josh - The Crestock Team

Thank you Josh, Denis


	Ignore \| Logged

cybernesco

« Reply #12 on: October 23, 2008, 05:52 »

#link

Quote from: sharpshot on October 23, 2008, 05:39

I am starting to wonder as well about not spending any more time with them. However, while I am still with them, I do mind about unjustified rejections. Especially when they simply unjustifiably "blanket" reject almost everything. Then it amount to a alot of wasted time!!!! The outcome of Josh effort will be the deciding factor for me to stay or pull out. I am not about to change my way of doing things for $20.00 a month when I get $1500.00 a month from other combined sites. Denis


« Last Edit: October 23, 2008, 06:29 by cybernesco »	Ignore \| Logged

cybernesco

« Reply #13 on: October 23, 2008, 07:30 »

#link

That is it?? I am done with Crestock. The 32 photos did get inspected again. And this time around more reasons were given such as burnt edges, visible photoshop editing ect... I'll see now how to get my portfolio deleted. Denis


« Last Edit: October 23, 2008, 08:09 by cybernesco »	Ignore \| Logged

cybernesco

« Reply #14 on: October 23, 2008, 08:29 »

#link

I did request to get my portfolio deleted ASAP and respectfully wish them the best in the future and thank them for their business in the past.

I did get a last peek at the rejected page. Unbeleivable, there were still adding reasons for rejections, such as "out of focus", "image contain a border" ect... WHY??? Are they mad at me for some reason??? There are no such things???

Mind you I did see one photo which at 100% you could easily see a small piece of hair out of place due to photoshop editing. Denis


	Ignore \| Logged

cybernesco

« Reply #15 on: October 23, 2008, 08:35 »

#link

I just got a message from Josh, basically I can summarize it with the following paragraph:

"
Overall I would suggest using more natural lighting, sun with
reflectors in a natural environment is more in demand than images
isolated on a white background.

All the best,

--
--
Josh Hodge

"

Denis


« Last Edit: October 23, 2008, 08:36 by cybernesco »	Ignore \| Logged

rene

« Reply #16 on: October 23, 2008, 08:41 »

#link

Quote from: cybernesco on October 23, 2008, 08:29

I did request to get my portfolio deleted ASAP and respectfully wish them the best in the future and thank them for their business in the past.

Good decision. No reason to support bad sites.


	Ignore \| Logged

sharpshot

« Reply #17 on: October 23, 2008, 08:54 »

#link

Quote from: cybernesco on October 23, 2008, 08:35

I just looked at your portfolio on istock and it seems that the isolated over white photos sell very well. I find it hard to believe they wouldn't be in demand with crestock.


	Ignore \| Logged

cybernesco

« Reply #18 on: October 23, 2008, 09:29 »

#link

Quote

I just looked at your portfolio on istock and it seems that the isolated over white photos sell very well. I find it hard to believe they wouldn't be in demand with crestock.

I am not a big fan of natural light. I guess one more reason for me to say bye to Crestock. Denis


« Last Edit: October 23, 2008, 09:35 by cybernesco »	Ignore \| Logged

cybernesco

« Reply #19 on: October 23, 2008, 10:12 »

#link

Crestock was very prompt to delete and disable my portfolio. In addition my last $50.00 was promply sent to paypal. Thank you Crestock for this last request. Denis


	Ignore \| Logged

cybernesco

« Reply #20 on: October 23, 2008, 14:14 »

#link

At the risk of sounding like a fool to everybody, I realize now that I may have overreacted regarding the above mention rejections. I did look at the photos on the technical side of it and I did find technical flaws to many of them. Many of the isolation problems could not be easily seen unless applying contrast at 100%. Thereafter, once you know the problematic area, the problem seems to be more visible. As well, when you look at 100% some photos have some visible edited area. I think that although Crestock does not pay well for now that I did learn a hell of a lot today. The reason why I was shocked, is because in the last few months I have been getting 100% acceptance rate in all other sites except IS at 85%. To me getting almost 0% from a site that hardly pay was a big slap in the face. BUT I think I was getting a little lazy with the good acceptance rate from the other sites. I think Crestock serve as a site to push you to be better and is worth to be part of. I thank you Josh for your email as this was a learning experience. I am sending an email for my account to be re-activated, if it cannot be done, well...I understand. My apologies to Josh and Crestock. Denis


	Ignore \| Logged

josh_crestock

« Reply #21 on: October 24, 2008, 06:43 »

#link

Thanks Denis,

Really appreciate this bit of feedback and in this thankless job its nice to hear something nice for once. I respect your humble attitude and really feel your images, with very little technical adjustment, will continue to do very well for you.

Josh - The Crestock Team


	Logged

hali

« Reply #22 on: October 25, 2008, 16:17 »

#link

Quote from: Runamock on October 23, 2008, 03:14

agree. i had ul s several times, and even after DT had approved them (or reveiwed and rejected some)
my images were still pending at Crestock. so much so that i have deleted them because i just get the impression they don't want our images anymore.
bad ! Cool


	Logged

hali

« Reply #23 on: October 25, 2008, 16:19 »

#link

Quote from: sharpshot on October 23, 2008, 05:39

sharpshot, another reason that prompted me to delete my pending images.
thx sharpshot. with some sites , at least they allow to opt out. i learned that you cannot do this with crestock.