MicrostockGroup

Well I dont get many rejects from any of my sites and youre right ofcourse, all sites suffer these this. Its amazing really. Ofcourse there are good and bad reviewers but the ones that cant look any further then noise and artifacts, technical aspects, etc, they should really move on.

If you have had an entire series rejected, try Scouting one of them and ask for clarification on the rejection reason.  It might surprise you.

+2


Only problem is by time you get revaluation redemption, you grow long beard and die of old age .

I don't think it is very likely that there is one reviewer who rejects massively while the others are being "reasonable". I'm sure his figures would soon get him pulled up by the management. I don't suppose it is possible that you might occasionally produce a duff batch?

Anyone who doesn't want his pictures reviewed (not edited, btw) by part-timers probably shouldn't submit anywhere. Last I heard the reviewing process was generally done on a part-time piecework basis, it may differ at different sites. The reviewers are told to check for visible defects and reject if they find them, they are not meant to be art critics letting this and that noisy, blurry photo through because it was so artistic the way the camera was waved at distant street lights during a long exposure. Flickr's always available for displaying priceless works of art.

Imagine what a mess the collections would be in if they were awash with nice-looking, artistic thumbnails that that were full of compression artifacts, wild CA and chromatic noise. How long would buyers stick around? The inspectors' job is to provide the assurance that if buyers like what they see then they can buy it knowing that the technical quality won't let them - or their customers - down. Imagine spending hours with a client selecting thumbnails for a poster campaign only to find that not one of them can be enlarged to that degree

Sometimes reviews are wrong - I just got one where the reviewer didn't understand the colour of the object and thought it was a WB error - but the critique forums show that nine times out of ten the mistake has been made by the whinging photographer, not by the reviewer. So the comments about idiots and morons are generally more applicable to those making them.

I know a couple of people who learned a lot by doing it for a while and probably improved a lot as photographers as a result, but the common opinion was it was very hard work for very little cash (and that was probably before the pay cut). We really ought to be grateful to them for getting out images online rather than slagging them off as being incompetent, half-assed, amateur morons who aren't fit to judge our work. Imagine the crap they have to wade through. Rinder put a long post on SS about what it is like to review.

Wow! Sensitive flower, aren't you? Well, let me tell you, I have a 5D Mk2, Elinchrome strobes, ISO 100 as standard and I still [expletive deleted by the system - fancy that!] -it up sometimes. In case you don't know, it is the photographer not the equipment that produces the results. Under-expose at ISO 100 full frame and you can easily get noise. Put your lights in the wrong place or get the balance wrong and you can still get bad lighting.

FYI, I have never reviewed a photo for the micros (or anywhere else), so I am not the Attila you seek. I just happen to respect the efforts of the poor sods who do and who are repeatedly slagged off but can never defend themselves. And the slaggers-off often have limited experience but think they are great just because they spent some cash on kit.

You don't make pictures with CA? What lens do you shoot with? The Canon 24-70 f2.8L makes CA on full frame, I've just been killing it on my latest shots using the proprietory software. If you are sticking with Canon L primes then you probably do not get CA. But maybe you just don't recognise it (after I was ticked-off by an incredibly marginal CA rejection I showed it to a former inspector who actually couldn't see it - but it was there all the same).

My comments about art photos/Flickr weren't aimed at you, they were a response to Lagereek's desire that inspectors should overlook defects and look at the wider picture.

I've just put up the little dials next to my name, so you can judge whether I have some idea or what I am talking about.


 

Baldrick (or Trousers), those dials could only mean you are much longer in the game than a lot others, nothing more. As you may already know, those who started earlier in this game have a HUGE advantage.
Nevertheless, I am not questioning your skills, at least not without seeing your port. Your setup is rather similar to mine, except the 24-70mm which I regard as being the crappiest of all L lenses. Yes, I have only primes, just one zoom. And yes, the 17-40 has CAs at the edge of the frame in some extreme situations, to the wider end of the focal length, this is also common to the 16-35mm. I just don't upload shots with CA, that's all.
...
If I were you I'd probably get the 24-105 instead...

LE: oh and the one that blows studio shots because of wrong arranging the lights has still a lot to learn. Why for the life of me would anyone underexpose a studio shot?!

Peace.

Well thanks mate but let me tell you, like many here Im some 20 years past presenting pics for critiques, Ive worked with Getty since 93, maincore RM sector as well, I use a number of cameras, HD3, Nikon D3X and God knows, Ive done Advertising and Industrial dayrate shooting for 25 years, been in numerous panels judging competition, helped Stones-Worldwide between 87-90 in editing and keywording. Sorry but I know my stuff, even blindfolded. Not bragging.

Back on topic. The entire problems lies in this and this fact alone:  editors or reviewers must start to look further then just the technical kiddies stuff, thats for beginners. An editor should judge a picture by its commercial-value, artistic-value, saleabillity, etc, noise, artefacts and so on???  crap! thats what a teacher do in photocollege. NOT HERE.

best.

alias! 
believe me and you can check out other posts, threads, etc, etc, Im ALL for raising standards! Ive said that hundreds of times, I would go even further, I would like to increase MP size as well, getting rid of the riff-raff clogging up just about every file there is but most unfortunately the agencies doesnt see it that way. Why?  well for every hungry part-timer and weekend snapper whos images eventually will render in a sale:  they earn dosh.

best.

I picked the 24-70 on a FF by reading the reviews. there are only 2 issues with it compared to the 24-105: weight that can unbalance your cam and just a little short for cropped portraits and close-ups. I was surprised by the fair amount of CA (peak hairs against white bg in models) but it's solved well by the DPP software that comes in-box with the 5DII. What dedicated software you use to get rid of the 24-70 CA?

I don't doubt your experience and some of your stuff is stunning.

But, you haven't addressed how the collections will provide the required quality for designers if they do not, first and foremost, make sure that the pictures do not have noise and artifacts that make them unusable.

It seems that what you are saying is that YOU know the trade well enough to only submit photos with noise etc, if they have artistic value that means the noise doesn't matter. And maybe you do. But if noise no longer counts as a rejection reason, what about the millions of noise riddled files that will flood the collections? How will buyers like that?

The only way for the sites to succeed without looking for "kiddies stuff" is to throw all the "kiddies" out so only seasoned pros who can be relied on to understand the market can submit.

I do sometimes think that your posts suggest you wish the industry was still a closed circle, the way it used to be 20 years back.

Hi again!

Thanks for that. Well no I would not want to go back 20 years. Many of the people involved 15-20 years back were actually creatives themselves not computer people and maybe thats the differance?
Ofcourse I dont advocate noise, etc, ( mind the impressionists didnt do too bad with noise) my own shots are hardly ever taken above ISO 100 but technical exellence should go without saying, unfortunately todays editors I feel are staring themselves blind at just that, resulting in that any old shot as long as its technically sound is accepted into our files regardless of anything else.

I might be wrong in which case I step down but somehow this seems to be the case.

anyhow its good with a rant sometimes, isnt it.
'
best.