Nav: Home
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 25, 2012, 15:46

Login with username, password and session length

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors


« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print

Topic: what about that refused files reason????!!  

(Read 1241 times)
nile

New Member

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« on: April 03, 2009, 07:18 »

Hi everybody

I've sent a lot of different images (persons, backgrounds, textures, signals, buildings, animals, nature...) and all of them were refused with ther same problem:

"This is a very well covered subject in our data base"

what about it?
they have enough images of everything?
I'm not original I guess...
« Last Edit: April 03, 2009, 07:35 by nile »

Ignore | Logged


DepositPhotos.com
epantha
« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2009, 07:47 »

All of my recent rejections have that same reason. They seem to have become more strict about what they accept lately. Also faster review time. I believe they hired some more reviewers? I am being very careful about what I upload now.


Ignore | Logged


Dreamframer



« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2009, 07:54 »

I had few rejected files with the same reason lately. But my friend had this rejection for the image that had only 2 slightly similar images in DT database. I guess it's some new reviewer, and I hope this will change soon. I don't want my approval rate to drop too much.


Ignore | Logged


batman


« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2009, 08:31 »

don't give up. they're a good site to belong to. probably the best .
if they reject your images, move on and submit different ones . it's just that they know those won't sell . their clientele is very specific, and once you get to know what they like , you will get the approval. chins up.

Logged


Jack Schiffer


Dreamstime Gauge
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2009, 08:46 »

Hi everybody

I've sent a lot of different images (persons, backgrounds, textures, signals, buildings, animals, nature...) and all of them were refused with ther same problem:

"This is a very well covered subject in our data base"

what about it?
they have enough images of everything?
I'm not original I guess...

As An example I searched for soft boiled eggs result =318 images my photo was approved.
If I would have uploaded textures the result would be 30,290 images  result = "This is a very well covered subject in our data base"

Always search for the photo Idea before uploading
My 2cents



Ignore | Logged


tempura



« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2009, 09:06 »

Hi everybody

I've sent a lot of different images (persons, backgrounds, textures, signals, buildings, animals, nature...) and all of them were refused with ther same problem:

"This is a very well covered subject in our data base"

what about it?
they have enough images of everything?
I'm not original I guess...
As An example I searched for soft boiled eggs result =318 images my photo was approved.
If I would have uploaded textures the result would be 30,290 images  result = "This is a very well covered subject in our data base"
Always search for the photo Idea before uploading
My 2cents
hmm you are probably right, but would it not be more accurate to compare food with textures?
try food against texture of a sunfloer seed against a green background covered with snow flakes  Wink


Ignore | Logged


stockastic


« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2009, 09:08 »

Interesting to speculate on where this leads.  At the rate images are being accepted by these sites, how long will it be until every distinguishable object on the face of the earth has been shot? At that point there will be nothing left to photograph but newly created things.  Stock photographers will be standing in line outside stores where new products are about to be put on the shelves.  We'll elbow past each other to buy them, race home to photograph and submit.

Somewhat more seriously, it is clear to me that the micros are trying to be more selective - rather suddenly, and in a big way.  They've taken in way,way too much junk and buyers are no longer impressed by 8 million vs. 5 million images.  If they want to compete on quality, that's fine but what should their strategy be to achieve that? Just dropping photos that haven't sold in 2 years while dialing up the standards for new photos  is too simple.  If you're rejecting new photos that are actually better than what you already have - and not deleting old photos that wouldn't meet the new criteria  - how fast are things really improving?  
« Last Edit: April 03, 2009, 11:11 by stockastic »

Ignore | Logged


nile

New Member

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #7 on: April 03, 2009, 09:58 »

Interesting to speculate on where this leads.  At the rate images are being accepted by these sites, how long will it be until every distinguishable object on the face of the earth has been shot? At that point there will be nothing left to photograph but newly created things.  Stock photographers will be standing in line outside stores where new products are about to be put on the shelves.  We'll elbow past each other to buy them, race home to photograph and submit.

Somewhat more seriously it is clear to me that the micros are trying to be more selective - rather suddenty, and in a big way.  They've taken in way,way too much junk and buyers are no longer impressed by 8 million vs. 5 million images.  If they want to compete on quality, that's fine but what should their strategy be to achieve that? Just dropping photos that haven't sold in 2 years while dialing up the standards for new photos  is too simple.  If you're rejecting new photos that are actually better than what you already have - and not deleting old photos that wouldn't meet the new criteria  - how fast are things really improving?  

that's very interesting, stockastic.
I think they would do it. And I really don't care if they delete all my photos that have not been sold in 2 years.
great idea!


Ignore | Logged


Jack Schiffer


Dreamstime Gauge
« Reply #8 on: April 03, 2009, 10:06 »

Hi everybody

I've sent a lot of different images (persons, backgrounds, textures, signals, buildings, animals, nature...) and all of them were refused with ther same problem:

"This is a very well covered subject in our data base"

what about it?
they have enough images of everything?
I'm not original I guess...
As An example I searched for soft boiled eggs result =318 images my photo was approved.
If I would have uploaded textures the result would be 30,290 images  result = "This is a very well covered subject in our data base"
Always search for the photo Idea before uploading
My 2cents
hmm you are probably right, but would it not be more accurate to compare food with textures?
try food against texture of a sunfloer seed against a green background covered with snow flakes  Wink

Sunflower seed texture 204 images  would work well over food which has 453,992 images


Ignore | Logged


Colette


« Reply #9 on: April 03, 2009, 10:23 »

But Istock and Shutterstock do have very big databases too, and they barely do rejections for that reason!
In my opinion they should do better to only raise the standards on quality and when they think they will become too big then remove old uploads of low quality that never had seen downloads. Rejecting new images of good quality seem to throw trees in a streaming river to me. It will block the stream and give less clear water.
But perhaps I am wrong about that. I don't have to run a stocksite!  Grin


Ignore | Logged


stockastic


« Reply #10 on: April 03, 2009, 11:16 »

I think it's mostly a matter of labor costs.  If a micro really wants to improve the quality of their existing archives , they'd have to hire, train and supervise competent people to look at millions of images and make decisions. 

Microsotock started out as a get-rich-quick dot-com concept.  Set up a web site and a database, and submitters will climb over each other to give you plenty of product for nothing in advance.  Then sell it dirt-cheap. Conitnue until the market is saturated.  After that - um, well no plan I guess.  Other than search engines, they add no value to the product and as the effectiveness of their search engines declines, even that value is lost.

I don't want the microstocks to fail, I want them to re-invest some profits and make the business sustainable.





Ignore | Logged


Magnum


iStock Gauge
« Reply #11 on: April 03, 2009, 11:18 »

Some reviewers are easy and some impossible. You are just unlucky to get the wrong reviewer at the wrong time.

I read once about a reviewer at Istock explaning how boring it was to review all bad pictures in between Yuri and the other top-players batches.

A normally nice looking car can look ridiculous between a Brand new Lamborgini or Ferarri. That´s how it is to have a human brain. It tend to get fed up Embarrassed


Ignore | Logged


Microstock InsiderEnvateo Photo Tools
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
Another reason not to go exclusive.
Crestock.com
kgtoh 4 1155 Last post January 30, 2008, 11:13
by kgtoh
Reason for going exclusive (maybe - or maybe not?)
iStockPhoto.com
faber 14 2168 Last post May 02, 2008, 00:11
by faber
Rejection reason!
StockXpert.com
borg 3 1031 Last post December 05, 2008, 20:50
by stormchaser
Yet another reason for rejection
iStockPhoto.com
disorderly 9 1158 Last post June 09, 2009, 17:53
by pieman
What if someone joins for exclusive and send refused images to other agencies? « 1 2 »
General Stock Discussion
PedroV 28 4602 Last post October 06, 2009, 13:42
by Dook

TinyPortal v1.0.5 beta 1© Bloc