MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: velocicarpo on March 22, 2012, 13:09
-
Requiring a Model release for a 300 years old statue?
Rejected for noise when you submitted a 3D render?
Rejected for similars when the concept is totally dfferent?
Compression Artifacts when saved at 100% quality?
Tell me: Who`s got the most incompetent Inspectors?
-
Where's PD, their reviewers are complete muppets. I've seen a lot of bad rejections so far, but percentage wise PD takes by far the biggest cut. IS can be nitpicking, SS was refusing everything for a few months last year, but has been reasonable prior to that and after that, I've had very few issues with FT, while DT sometimes exaggerates when it comes to similars, but if you take it into account you can have a 100% AR for months. I don't submit to any agency besides the top 4 anymore, but I stop caring about rejections quickly during the short period of time I did upload
-
Where's PD, their reviewers are complete muppets. I've seen a lot of bad rejections so far, but percentage wise PD takes by far the biggest cut. IS can be nitpicking, SS was refusing everything for a few months last year, but has been reasonable prior to that and after that, I've had very few issues with FT, while DT sometimes exaggerates when it comes to similars, but if you take it into account you can have a 100% AR for months. I don't submit to any agency besides the top 4 anymore, but I stop caring about rejections quickly during the short period of time I did upload
I added Photodune to the poll ;-)
-
1. SS
2. DT
3. PD
I've got two words for these editors, GOD COMPLEX ;)
These guys take all the pleasure out of this work!
We need MSCI (microstock crime investigation)
They better get their act together because I doubt they rather lose contributors who bring in the money and get payed, then editors who just get payed.
I currently have no issues with all the other agencies (FT, IS, 123RF,etc) and no rejections whatsoever on macro's.
-
We need MSCI (microstock crime investigation)
Hahahhaaa, great! Yes, indeed we need a MSCI :-)
-
I voted FT only because they reject a TON of my images. But i know it's a known fact that they don't really want nature pictures too badly, so I can't actually blame them for sticking to that claim and rejecting the images.
-
Incompetents is perhaps the wrong word, non caring and using automatic reiewing i more like it. 123rf and photodune, are both trollops. Thats why I dont supply them.
-
Oh come on - it's DT and it's not close. lol
-
No agency is not even close to DT. Their "inspectors" should find another job like secretary оr security guard.
-
The poll is going to be a bit unfair, as the amount of contributors to smaller sites (like Panther) is so much less.
Can not decide which is worse, getting rejections for silly reasons or not being afforded the courtesy of receiving a reason at all. One batch all accepted, next all rejected, etc..
-
this is far from accurate, we cannot blame inspectors, they are following agency policy and demand at a specific moment.. inspectors and inspection are totally different subjects..
-
No agency is not even close to DT. Their "inspectors" should find another job like secretary оr security guard.
....Window cleaning is even less challenging ;-)
-
this is far from accurate, we cannot blame inspectors, they are following agency policy and demand at a specific moment.. inspectors and inspection are totally different subjects..
...because of that I did ask for the "Inspection process" too....to the contributor it does not make any difference, neither is it meant as a personal offense to the Inspectors as people.
-
this is far from accurate, we cannot blame inspectors, they are following agency policy and demand at a specific moment.. inspectors and inspection are totally different subjects..
...because of that I did ask for the "Inspection process" too....to the contributor it does not make any difference, neither is it meant as a personal offense to the Inspectors as people.
But of course it is, many are complete muppets ;)
-
this is far from accurate, we cannot blame inspectors, they are following agency policy and demand at a specific moment.. inspectors and inspection are totally different subjects..
...because of that I did ask for the "Inspection process" too....to the contributor it does not make any difference, neither is it meant as a personal offense to the Inspectors as people.
I don´t think DT inspectors are doing a nasty job perhaps its the agency itself with the approve everything from newbies and making things harder to less newbies or even top contributors, doesn´t make much sense but hey thats their call
-
this is far from accurate, we cannot blame inspectors, they are following agency policy and demand at a specific moment.. inspectors and inspection are totally different subjects..
...because of that I did ask for the "Inspection process" too....to the contributor it does not make any difference, neither is it meant as a personal offense to the Inspectors as people.
I don´t think DT inspectors are doing a nasty job perhaps its the agency itself with the approve everything from newbies and making things harder to less newbies or even top contributors, doesn´t make much sense but hey thats their call
Yes....IMHO Dreamstime had the luck to be one of the first in the game to compete with IS. But thats it. I doubt they will be very successful in the future with their policies.
-
this is far from accurate, we cannot blame inspectors, they are following agency policy and demand at a specific moment.. inspectors and inspection are totally different subjects..
+1 but I vote for IS on that basis
-
In my case, 123RF. Totally unpredictable. At least with DT
I have some sense of what they like/don't like. 123RF is the
only agency that I know of that rejects a shot of bacon simmering
in a fry pan yet places it under "editorial" catagory. Get an
inspector on a bad day and you'll get the entire batch rejected
for "poor lighting/poor composition". I've never had that experience
with DT. And what about waiting time? Does anybody else take
six weeks to inspect your shots? DP, 48 hours max. DT, within
72 hours.
-
Oh come on - it's DT and it's not close. lol
True. It's the only agency I can't even be bothered to upload to. I have an acceptance rate of 86-98% at every agency I use but with my last batch to DT I only had 17% accepted. Therefore no more fresh content for DT. Clearly I'd be wasting my time and theirs.
-
why are we limited to just ONE agency, when there are such silly reviewing practices at so many agencies?
LCV
snapshot
ignorance of what editorial means
lighting problems on weather & storm pix
etc
etc
-
Oh come on - it's DT and it's not close. lol
I noticed Panther there after I already voted. No option to change my vote. But in all fairness, when you need to wait two months and get no clue what's going on, they shunt your photos into some public review area... Colored lights that are amusing but useless. I guess the inspections there don't really matter anyway? ;D
No agency is not even close to DT. Their "inspectors" should find another job like secretary оr security guard.
That's an insult to secretaries and security guards thinking that DT inspectors should get a promotion for their review work.
-
And the winner is... Crestock.
-
And the winner is... Crestock.
+1
-
Crestock is the only one where the reviewing process stopped me submitting they are insulting in their rejections!
-
This thread is useless! most people here who are casting votes, do so out of sour grapes, only because they suffer plenty of rejects, etc, no good.
-
this is far from accurate, we cannot blame inspectors, they are following agency policy and demand at a specific moment.. inspectors and inspection are totally different subjects..
Sounds good Louis, but I don't buy it ;)
You can tell by checking similar newly accepted images after you just got yours rejected, and then conclude they are of far less quality then what you have provided, at least in my case. I doubt that's the agencies policy.
I'll take IS inspectors any day over these. They reject some for quality and most, if not all compositions for overfiltering but at least I know where I stand, and then there's still the support ticket.
Anyway I'm glad I finaly said what's been bugging me since I started in this business but will leave it at that, it's probably no use discussing it anyway.
Take care all
-
This thread is useless! most people here who are casting votes, do so out of sour grapes, only because they suffer plenty of rejects, etc, no good.
Far from useless Chris, no grapes here, just the truth.
123RF rings a bell? you even pulled your port mate. IS search engine? you said something about sour grapes? ;)
You know I respect you and your work but don't for a minute think you're special and won't suffer from this too one day.
Anyway, like I've said, I'm done with the subject, this is my last post about this.
Take care all and good luck!
-
This thread is useless! most people here who are casting votes, do so out of sour grapes, only because they suffer plenty of rejects, etc, no good.
Far from useless Chris, no grapes here, just the truth.
123RF rings a bell? you even pulled your port mate. IS search engine? you said something about sour grapes? ;)
You know I respect you and your work but don't for a minute think you're special and won't suffer from this too one day.
Anyway, like I've said, I'm done with the subject, this is my last post about this.
Take care all and good luck!
Not exactly what I meant though. Just the fact alone, DT and FT, is among the top four, proves they are doing something right, doesnt it? no agency ends up in the top tier with bad inspection.
One has to separate tough inspection from bad inspection and I have a feeling many here dont do that. Sure Ive been the victim myself of very weird inspectors and your right I pulled my port from, 123, but for two reasons, inspectors there couldnt even separate WB, from purposely toning an image, now thats ludicrous, also they love generic stuff, because its easy to handle, easy to review.
-
Not exactly what I meant though. Just the fact alone, DT and FT, is among the top four, proves they are doing something right, doesnt it? no agency ends up in the top tier with bad inspection.
One has to separate tough inspection from bad inspection and I have a feeling many here dont do that. Sure Ive been the victim myself of very weird inspectors and your right I pulled my port from, 123, but for two reasons, inspectors there couldnt even separate WB, from purposely toning an image, now thats ludicrous, also they love generic stuff, because its easy to handle, easy to review.
* straight. You can't judge inspection process based on a personal grudge (usually caused by your own incompetence to produce good images). There of course are exceptions, lageereek's for example. It's proof enough if you get them accepted everywhere else (most importantly at all of the top 4, if you contribute to all of them that is) and on top of them even have decent, good or even great sales.
-
I honestly think that most of us a mature enough to separate personal emotional reactions to rejection from the professional point of view and workflow. The question is about competence, not about any personal "pi55ed off" reactions.
-
I find Fot and IS impossible to deal with as they both reject 95% of anything I submit. The other sites vary at time - accepting between 54% and 80%; except when a crazy reviewer rejects everything for the same stated reason - like "Fuzzy" or "Focus...".
The main reason mine are rejected is the limitation of my subject material. Going out on shoots for historic sites and travel type shots is on the bottom of the list as far as subject material goes. That is why I no longer shoot Wildlife. So I'm investing in some lighting equipment and will try some other type material.
DT, SS and BS give me meaningful feedback, and often advise me that they are not looking for the type image I have been submitting as they "have too many in their database". So how can I say they are doing poor review work? There are a couple of crazy reviewers on any site - like when 100% gets rejected. That occasionally happens on SS. It is consistent on Fot and IS for me, and the reasons are "Focus" or "Artifacts".
Hang in there partners, and don't give up!
-
One way to compare, is which agency consistently rejects a photo that the other top ten agencies accept. In my case, it's Dreamstime.
-
One way to compare, is which agency consistently rejects a photo that the other top ten agencies accept. In my case, it's Dreamstime.
I agree, that's the best way to approach it.
-
I submit just occasional oddball images so I haven't been nailed for 'similars' by DT. But I've sure been seeing the complaints here. It's ironic because microstock industry has been binging on 'similar' images for years as far as I can see. Hey how did those ten million business handshakes slip through? Now, all of a sudden, DT has found true religion.
-
I submit just occasional oddball images so I haven't been nailed for 'similars' by DT. But I've sure been seeing the complaints here. It's ironic because microstock industry has been binging on 'similar' images for years as far as I can see. Hey how did those ten million business handshakes slip through? Now, all of a sudden, DT has found true religion.
All I can say is finally! There is a limit, as you pointed out ;) . Why would they want to accept something that has virtually no sales potential
-
I submit just occasional oddball images so I haven't been nailed for 'similars' by DT. But I've sure been seeing the complaints here. It's ironic because microstock industry has been binging on 'similar' images for years as far as I can see. Hey how did those ten million business handshakes slip through? Now, all of a sudden, DT has found true religion.
All I can say is finally! There is a limit, as you pointed out ;) . Why would they want to accept something that has virtually no sales potential
Think about it...
Say a businessman handshake would sell 100 times but, if refused, a buyer would just pick another from the thousands available – no real benefit to the site. On the other hand, some niche subject with potential for 10 sales would mean 10 sales the site wouldn’t otherwise get. Which image selection makes most commercial sense?
-
If a buyer does not find what he is looking for on one site he goes elsewhere. Many times he buys then at this elsewhere a bunch of credits or a subsciption and just sticks with the other site and does not bother to come back - only if he has the same situation like before (not finding what he is looking for). I do it like this and many designers I know too. I left years ago istock (as a buyer) because of moral considerations and switched to DT. Now I switched to Depositphotos because I could not find certain "niche" images and bought already a couple of sub-packages at Deposit. I doubt I will come back. Not only because of the niche thing, they lowered royalties too much, their inspection process etc.
Conclusion: Selling stock is not only math. If you lose niche subjects you are very likely to lose customers - not only the few niche sales. Nobody of us designers is willing to switch x-times a day the site. Oftenly we work under extreme time pressure.
-
I submit just occasional oddball images so I haven't been nailed for 'similars' by DT. But I've sure been seeing the complaints here. It's ironic because microstock industry has been binging on 'similar' images for years as far as I can see. Hey how did those ten million business handshakes slip through? Now, all of a sudden, DT has found true religion.
All I can say is finally! There is a limit, as you pointed out ;) . Why would they want to accept something that has virtually no sales potential
Think about it...
Say a businessman handshake would sell 100 times but, if refused, a buyer would just pick another from the thousands available – no real benefit to the site. On the other hand, some niche subject with potential for 10 sales would mean 10 sales the site wouldn’t otherwise get. Which image selection makes most commercial sense?
You mean no loss for the site. OTOH if there's too many of the same, buyers won't wade through tens of sites just to get what they're looking for, as velocicarpo and hundreds of others pointed out, buyers don't have the time for that.
I think putting a quality selection of images in front of the buyers is the best solution. Some of them are even willing to pay 10x the price (TAC, infinite etc), just to save time and get what they want right away.
-
Honestly! some people here should have been with us in the film-days, Stones, Getty, Image-Bank, etc. If you think the editing is hard today, believe me, its nothing! compared to the old days, nothing!.
The overwhelming majority of members used to send them batches of between 50-100, transparancies. We all used to get approx, 5-10% acceptance rate and that was on a good batch!
Also think about this, the main criteria for belonging to one of these agencies, was that you were a bona-fide professional photographer.
Todays editing is nowhere near as tough as what it used to be.
At IS for example, its pretty much enough that an image is technically sound, how can that be so hard to achieve?
-
Honestly! some people here should have been with us in the film-days, Stones, Getty, Image-Bank, etc. If you think the editing is hard today, believe me, its nothing! compared to the old days, nothing!.
The overwhelming majority of members used to send them batches of between 50-100, transparancies. We all used to get approx, 5-10% acceptance rate and that was on a good batch!
Also think about this, the main criteria for belonging to one of these agencies, was that you were a bona-fide professional photographer.
Todays editing is nowhere near as tough as what it used to be.
At IS for example, its pretty much enough that an image is technically sound, how can that be so hard to achieve?
Interesting to hear from the old days.... May I ask what (aprox) was the average Return per year for an accepted shot?
-
Honestly! some people here should have been with us in the film-days, Stones, Getty, Image-Bank, etc. If you think the editing is hard today, believe me, its nothing! compared to the old days, nothing!.
The overwhelming majority of members used to send them batches of between 50-100, transparancies. We all used to get approx, 5-10% acceptance rate and that was on a good batch!
Also think about this, the main criteria for belonging to one of these agencies, was that you were a bona-fide professional photographer.
Todays editing is nowhere near as tough as what it used to be.
At IS for example, its pretty much enough that an image is technically sound, how can that be so hard to achieve?
Interesting to hear from the old days.... May I ask what (aprox) was the average Return per year for an accepted shot?
My experience was that , as lagereek says, it was hard to get files accepted- 10-20%. And for the files that got accepted, only 10% of those files sold. But when they sold, it was for rates between $500 and $3000 per use. So for a return per image analysis, it's hard to say, because it was a different metric. But the check at the end of the month was way above anything from microstock. Now it's reversed, and a good month on microstock is routinely way above managed rights files today. BUt no where near the old days... :P
The lesson is- everything has it's day, so save your money and don't assume the future will be like the past. Look for new opportunities, which are always around. The hard part is seeing them.
As for the original topic, if you don't like the reviewers, don't submit.
-
Reviewing competence and consistency should be improving, but they aren't. I get the creepy feeling that one agency after another is outsourcing reviewing to som new low bidder with employees in another part of the world. And they're changing their acceptance guidelines and policies so often that I'll bet if you interviewed 10 reviewers privately, one at a time, you'd hear ten different interpretations of the guidelines.
The combination of falling prices and higher rejection rates is like tightening thumbscrews.
-
Reviewing competence and consistency should be improving, but they aren't. I get the creepy feeling that one agency after another is outsourcing reviewing to som new low bidder with employees in another part of the world. And they're changing their acceptance guidelines and policies so often that I'll bet if you interviewed 10 reviewers privately, one at a time, you'd hear ten different interpretations of the guidelines.
The combination of falling prices and higher rejection rates is like tightening thumbscrews.
True. It`s mainly about the fast money. Nobody wants to invent something, build a sustainable database of quality images, establish a good relationship with the contributors. Maybe I am a bit too optimistic, but I also predict that these half-hearted libraries have a limited halflife in the market :-)
-
I sold my First stock shot to Arizona Highways in 1968. I got $500.00 Thats about $3,000 in todays money.
-
I sold my First stock shot to Arizona Highways in 1968. I got $500.00 Thats about $3,000 in todays money.
Wow, that must had been an amazing feeling!
-
Reviewing competence and consistency should be improving, but they aren't. I get the creepy feeling that one agency after another is outsourcing reviewing to som new low bidder with employees in another part of the world. And they're changing their acceptance guidelines and policies so often that I'll bet if you interviewed 10 reviewers privately, one at a time, you'd hear ten different interpretations of the guidelines.
The combination of falling prices and higher rejection rates is like tightening thumbscrews.
True. It`s mainly about the fast money. Nobody wants to invent something, build a sustainable database of quality images, establish a good relationship with the contributors. Maybe I am a bit too optimistic, but I also predict that these half-hearted libraries have a limited halflife in the market :-)
Yes. As other posters have pointed out, the big agencies simply can't afford to clean up the enormous messes they've built up over the last few years. Once you have a huge database full of terabytes of cr@p all you can do is try to come up with exceeding clever (complicated, processor-intensive, hard to implement) ideas for search algorithms to try and deliver better results to customers. You can't possibly pay people to go back through tens of millions of images and separate the wheat from the chaff. And software technology to recognize a "good" (pleasing to the eye) image doesn't exist. This is why new agencies might stand a chance, eventually.
-
Honestly! some people here should have been with us in the film-days, Stones, Getty, Image-Bank, etc. If you think the editing is hard today, believe me, its nothing! compared to the old days, nothing!.
The overwhelming majority of members used to send them batches of between 50-100, transparancies. We all used to get approx, 5-10% acceptance rate and that was on a good batch!
Also think about this, the main criteria for belonging to one of these agencies, was that you were a bona-fide professional photographer.
Todays editing is nowhere near as tough as what it used to be.
At IS for example, its pretty much enough that an image is technically sound, how can that be so hard to achieve?
Interesting to hear from the old days.... May I ask what (aprox) was the average Return per year for an accepted shot?
As Jbarber says, its difficult to estimate but just to give an example, on the day of the Big-bang, I shot a young stockbroker with wide braces and all that with a gigantic dealing-room in the background, ( not editorial) but a commercial image, that image fetched me over, 100K, in the first two years. Ofcourse, it was a historic day, all stock-exchanges were computerized, automated and it was history, the yuppie-era started.
On an average though I would agree, pics could fetch anything between 100-3000 bucks and pretty much the same shots and it was murderously though editing.
I can easily complain about search-engines, thats my speciality but not really reviewing, I mean put yourself in these guys position with the micro-world, tens of thousands of shots coming in per day, jeez! me! I probably reach for the Whiskey bottle. If anything they should employ more editors, easing some of the preassure.
-
Requiring a Model release for a 300 years old statue?
Rejected for noise when you submitted a 3D render?
Rejected for similars when the concept is totally dfferent?
Compression Artifacts when saved at 100% quality?
Tell me: Who`s got the most incompetent Inspectors?
- Image is out-of-focus
Cityscape shot at f/11, nothing was close to the camera, it couldn't have been phsyically out of focus even if I tried :D
This thread is useless! most people here who are casting votes, do so out of sour grapes, only because they suffer plenty of rejects, etc, no good.
In general I find inspectors from the most famous agencies to be very good, to be honest. Except for very few cases where I scratched my head, I can usually see the reason and it's way most often than not my fault. The best, in my opinion, being SS and IS (their customer care sucks, not their inspectors, oops, yeah, I know you read me... hope everything is well, how's family? all good? great to hear).
-
And the winner is... Crestock.
+1 [they seem to lack grasp of the laws of optics]
-
And the winner is... Crestock.
+1 [they seem to lack grasp of the laws of optics]
I dumped Secretionstock years ago. Waste of time in my very humble opinion.
-
Not exactly what I meant though. Just the fact alone, DT and FT, is among the top four, proves they are doing something right, doesnt it? no agency ends up in the top tier with bad inspection.
One has to separate tough inspection from bad inspection and I have a feeling many here dont do that. Sure Ive been the victim myself of very weird inspectors and your right I pulled my port from, 123, but for two reasons, inspectors there couldnt even separate WB, from purposely toning an image, now thats ludicrous, also they love generic stuff, because its easy to handle, easy to review.
you just contradicted yourself - citing bad reviewers at 123 -- others have cited similar problems with bulk rejects at the other agencies
>>> no agency ends up in the top tier with bad inspection.
unsupported assertion.
the success of an agency in no way PROVES their review process is good - it may be they can do well DESPITE a bad review process.
-
>>> no agency ends up in the top tier with bad inspection.
unsupported assertion.
the success of an agency in no way PROVES their review process is good - it may be they can do well DESPITE a bad review process.
Possible but extremely improbable - any retailer that doesn't select the right stock is not going to be very successful
-
>>> no agency ends up in the top tier with bad inspection.
unsupported assertion.
the success of an agency in no way PROVES their review process is good - it may be they can do well DESPITE a bad review process.
Possible but extremely improbable - any retailer that doesn't select the right stock is not going to be very successful
Very good post
-
I didn't vote out of sour grapes - I have almost 4000 images at every agency except istock. I have about a 90-95% review rate on every site, including DT. My vote and comment was based on the fact that I get more images rejected at DT that Fotolia, SS and iStock take than anything else. I know some people get rejects at Fotolia but I do about 99% with them. Same with SS. I am able to produce images and I know what's going to get rejected and sometimes do push my limits with agencies. Dreamstime, however, doesn't get all of my photos anymore. I know what they won't accept so I have a high enough accept rate still but it's because I keep a lot of shots away from them.
Crestock and Panther would be lower on the list than Dreamstime for me but their terrible reviews made me give up on them long ago plus they're small potatoes so honestly who cares? I don't care if 123RF rejects a few of my images. For the payments I get, it's not worth caring.
The fact that my Dreamstime sales took a major dive almost the same time they decided to crush similars means to me that it's hurting my business. I don't like that - and that's not sour grapes, that's business.
-
Possible but extremely improbable - any retailer that doesn't select the right stock is not going to be very successful
Alamy accepts 99% of everything I've ever subbed and they are in my top 3 best sellers over the last year. Maybe #2. WAY ahead of DT. Long tail stuff does sell. I have $150 sales on Alamy that were rejected on DT for lighting. Really? lol Some buyer thought it was worth $150 but no buyer would find it useful at a buck?
M
-
Because it's rejected doesn't mean it's not good - the only real reason for rejection is what the site interprets as LCV. I gather Alamy is a different market so probably have a different interpretation.
-
dreamstime by a landslide pretty much...
these numbers have got to mean something to someone at DT, but the question is will they look at this and perhaps do something about it or just ignore the voice of contributors and keep sticking it to them?
-
I accidentally voted for IS in that I read this thread to be the exact opposite to what it actually is, so subtract one from the tally. There really needs to be the option for Crestock which would have got the vote for many, including me.
Behind Crestock is FT which for me just rejects anything that's travel related regardless of quality, and accepts anything isolated on white or with a MR person in it.
I know a lot of people whine about DT, and their reviews aren't exactly perfect, but theres also many microstockers that don't know the difference between what's similar and what's not.
-
Not exactly what I meant though. Just the fact alone, DT and FT, is among the top four, proves they are doing something right, doesnt it? no agency ends up in the top tier with bad inspection.
One has to separate tough inspection from bad inspection and I have a feeling many here dont do that. Sure Ive been the victim myself of very weird inspectors and your right I pulled my port from, 123, but for two reasons, inspectors there couldnt even separate WB, from purposely toning an image, now thats ludicrous, also they love generic stuff, because its easy to handle, easy to review.
you just contradicted yourself - citing bad reviewers at 123 -- others have cited similar problems with bulk rejects at the other agencies
>>> no agency ends up in the top tier with bad inspection.
unsupported assertion.
the success of an agency in no way PROVES their review process is good - it may be they can do well DESPITE a bad review process.
Youre missing the entie point. Editing/reviewing, SHOULD, be a human process. Automated-editing with calibrated softwares, singles out acepted/rejected, images, based only on technical merits.
After all the years, I can easily tell, some of the smaller nd middle-tier work like this. Big differance!
However, with your type of photography, bit of travel and scenics, there is not much that can go wrong, is it? I mean as long as your shots are technically sound, etc, you wont suffer rejects.
best.
-
>>> no agency ends up in the top tier with bad inspection.
unsupported assertion.
the success of an agency in no way PROVES their review process is good - it may be they can do well DESPITE a bad review process.
Possible but extremely improbable - any retailer that doesn't select the right stock is not going to be very successful
only mildly appropriate in the case of stock photography - when there are MILLIONS of items to host, even a bad reviewing policy will still produce a decent collection.
-
Youre missing the entie point. Editing/reviewing, SHOULD, be a human process. Automated-editing with calibrated softwares, singles out acepted/rejected, images, based only on technical merits.
After all the years, I can easily tell, some of the smaller nd middle-tier work like this. Big differance!
However, with your type of photography, bit of travel and scenics, there is not much that can go wrong, is it? I mean as long as your shots are technically sound, etc, you wont suffer rejects.
best.
i totally agree that "Editing/reviewing, SHOULD, be a human process."
as far as nothing going wrong - the seemingly random decisions of many reviewers does result in many rejections (personally, I just keep submitting and don’t let it affect my uploads or shooting) - my point was just that business success and profitability are one thing, and not necessarily correlated with good reviewing practices, much less either being a CAUSE of the other.
-
...and the winner iiiiis ... dreamstime! Why is this not a surprise to me?
-
I'm surprised. I don't have any problems with Dreamstime reviews. I don't produce lots of 'similars' though. Maybe that's why.
-
I'm surprised. I don't have any problems with Dreamstime reviews. I don't produce lots of 'similars' though. Maybe that's why.
+1, 100% AR most months, but always above 90%
-
On the Dreamstime issue, I think there's a difference between incompetent reviewers, and a policy that rejects similar images.
Seems like most of the complaints about DT here are about the similars policy, not actually about the competency of the reviewers.
FWIW, I feel like DT reviewers are perfectly competent and can tell a good image from a bad one as well as anybody.
-
On the Dreamstime issue, I think there's a difference between incompetent reviewers, and a policy that rejects similar images.
Seems like most of the complaints about DT here are about the similars policy, not actually about the competency of the reviewers.
FWIW, I feel like DT reviewers are perfectly competent and can tell a good image from a bad one as well as anybody.
Exactly!
-
On the Dreamstime issue, I think there's a difference between incompetent reviewers, and a policy that rejects similar images.
Seems like most of the complaints about DT here are about the similars policy, not actually about the competency of the reviewers.
FWIW, I feel like DT reviewers are perfectly competent and can tell a good image from a bad one as well as anybody.
Exactly!
like I previously said, 100% on that
-
On the Dreamstime issue, I think there's a difference between incompetent reviewers, and a policy that rejects similar images.
Seems like most of the complaints about DT here are about the similars policy, not actually about the competency of the reviewers.
FWIW, I feel like DT reviewers are perfectly competent and can tell a good image from a bad one as well as anybody.
Totally agree! very competent indeed! and to prevent clogging up the files they reject similars, which is fully understandable.
-
No 1. equality DT, FT with the rest... no problems.
-
Hm, the survey is a nice idea, but somehow useless, because I cannot compare agencies that I do not deliver to. So probably one of the agencies where most people upload to will be on top of the list.
-
I agree with lisafx about "DT issue". Even I learned how avoid such rejections ( choosing the "best ones" or go to series ). So basically, poll results are screwed up...
I've seen many topics about "rejections" over top tier agencies, but they still on top, which probably means that, what they accept, is what they sell best.
What good is an agency which accepts everything and then does not sell? ( Like some low earners? )
And as said above by many: isn't more about agency own policy?
BTW, my vote gone to PM ( Rejections and Images deleted because PR needed for Editorial images inside "track" LOL ), but it appears to be more agency policy than competency of the reviewers.
-
I've seen many topics about "rejections" over top tier agencies, but they still on top, which probably means that, what they accept, is what they sell best.
you can't draw that conclusion since no one knows which of the images they rejected would sell - each site has millions of images, and they probably only sell a small % of those in any quantity. they also reject millions of images, and undoubtedly many of those would sell BETTER than what they have online. that's a big reason why arbitrary rejects like LCV are so frustrating
-
I've seen many topics about "rejections" over top tier agencies, but they still on top, which probably means that, what they accept, is what they sell best.
you can't draw that conclusion since no one knows which of the images they rejected would sell - each site has millions of images, and they probably only sell a small % of those in any quantity. they also reject millions of images, and undoubtedly many of those would sell BETTER than what they have online. that's a big reason why arbitrary rejects like LCV are so frustrating
You only seem to see the direct implications of that. What about all the buyers that leave and never come back, because they can't find what they're looking for, they're annoyed with so many similars, sick and tired of wading through tens of pages to get to the picture they were looking for. I think that's a bigger problem and I wish more agencies would have similar restrictions than DT and even better if they'd delete the old non-sellers. If a photo doesn't sell for a year, it should be deleted. If it doesn't meet today's criteria, it should be deleted. Of course no agency will use their resources to get rid of substandard content, but an automated system deleting files that didn't sell for a year would be easy to incorporate
-
Speaking as a Buyer, I never had Problems with "wading through similars". I think it is a myth. It takes me about 1 second to overlook a PAGE of search results and to see if there is what I`m looking for. Much more often it happens that I NEED similars to find the right angle, framing etc. which is oftenly not easy.
-
You only seem to see the direct implications of that. What about all the buyers that leave and never come back, because they can't find what they're looking for, they're annoyed with so many similars, sick and tired of wading through tens of pages to get to the picture they were looking for. I think that's a bigger problem and I wish more agencies would have similar restrictions than DT and even better if they'd delete the old non-sellers. If a photo doesn't sell for a year, it should be deleted. If it doesn't meet today's criteria, it should be deleted. Of course no agency will use their resources to get rid of substandard content, but an automated system deleting files that didn't sell for a year would be easy to incorporate
Huh? Ever heard of an agency called 'Shutterstock' perchance? They started a few months after DT, they don't do any of what you suggest (which DT does) and SS are currently generating about 4-5x more income for me than DT is. SS have a decent search engine to sort the results appropriately and that's all that is needed. Evidently customers have been voting with their $'s for the last few years so I think we know which system they prefer.
-
You only seem to see the direct implications of that. What about all the buyers that leave and never come back, because they can't find what they're looking for, they're annoyed with so many similars, sick and tired of wading through tens of pages to get to the picture they were looking for. I think that's a bigger problem and I wish more agencies would have similar restrictions than DT and even better if they'd delete the old non-sellers. If a photo doesn't sell for a year, it should be deleted. If it doesn't meet today's criteria, it should be deleted. Of course no agency will use their resources to get rid of substandard content, but an automated system deleting files that didn't sell for a year would be easy to incorporate
Huh? Ever heard of an agency called 'Shutterstock' perchance? They started a few months after DT, they don't do any of what you suggest (which DT does) and SS are currently generating about 4-5x more income for me than DT is. SS have a decent search engine to sort the results appropriately and that's all that is needed. Evidently customers have been voting with their $'s for the last few years so I think we know which system they prefer.
Then I guess they found another way of putting good content in front of the buyers (I highlighted that point in my previous post and in yours, so you can see we really are on the same page). BTW SS is bringing me almost 20x more. And I also always say they are the top agency and they know what they're are doing and it shows in our earnings. Mid/bottom tier agencies are not able to do that, that's why they're failing miserably and our earnings, in most cases, are pathetic. That was also the reason for IS's falling sales (best match shifts) as we all know. Though things look a lot better this year at IS, at least to me.
-
I voted photodune purely on the basis of one image that's part of set
submitted to 10
accepted by 9
sold on 6
Photodune accepted the others but declined this one, which is the best seller. They are just odd like that. And given I make 0 income from them, I find it just irritating they are so picky! lol. They also have the worst upload process. just painful.
-
^^Why do you even bother then? I don't anymore and I had sales that were actually decent for a mid tier agency (meaning pathetic really)
-
Speaking as a Buyer, I never had Problems with "wading through similars". I think it is a myth. It takes me about 1 second to overlook a PAGE of search results and to see if there is what I`m looking for. Much more often it happens that I NEED similars to find the right angle, framing etc. which is oftenly not easy.
Hi there! I am glad to hear that, from a buyers point of view. Unfortunately there are very few like yourself. I know quite a lot of buyers, from ordinary buyers up to Ad-agency people, ADs, etc, and I tell you, they are terrible in complaining, I have seen them in action and boy! if they come accross similars, etc, after only 3 to 4, pages they move on to another outlet.
best.
-
I guess one way of assessing inspection process of an agency overall would be looking at the latest accepted images. Just search anything, sort by acceptance date - here go. Take the number of bad images divide by total number.
To me (I am beginner, and am looking mainly for consistence) FT rejects almost everything, but that's fine as long as they are consistent with others. CanStock accepts almost everything, this is also ok with me as they follow their interests. And SS and 123 seem to me most inconsistent (it looks like 123 is improving though, so I voted SS)
-
. I know quite a lot of buyers, from ordinary buyers up to Ad-agency people, ADs, etc, and I tell you, they are terrible in complaining, I have seen them in action and boy! if they come accross similars, etc, after only 3 to 4, pages they move on to another outlet.
best.
i've never understood why no one has ever come up with a search engine that deals with similars in a realistic way - there's no excuse for 3 or 4 pages of similars - they should present results the way google does - show varipous rdesults, but only show a few similar images, with a link if someone wants to dig deeper -
this would help both types of buyers [and would also eliminate the need for so many LCV rejections by reviewers who really have no clue what the actual value of any image is]. the argument that it would take up too much space is long gone
-
. I know quite a lot of buyers, from ordinary buyers up to Ad-agency people, ADs, etc, and I tell you, they are terrible in complaining, I have seen them in action and boy! if they come accross similars, etc, after only 3 to 4, pages they move on to another outlet.
best.
i've never understood why no one has ever come up with a search engine that deals with similars in a realistic way - there's no excuse for 3 or 4 pages of similars - they should present results the way google does - show varipous rdesults, but only show a few similar images, with a link if someone wants to dig deeper -
this would help both types of buyers [and would also eliminate the need for so many LCV rejections by reviewers who really have no clue what the actual value of any image is]. the argument that it would take up too much space is long gone
Great Idea....although personally I am not bothered by similars, the results could be presented in a "tree like" structure. Only one image of a series on top and visible on the search results page with the option to go deeper into. Nevertheless this would undermine my personal search behaviour and I think I would lose some images since too many clicks are involved for me :D
-
I just found out that PD accepts images of iMac (on homepage) or Apple Remote Control - no, it's not for editorial use only. Apple logo is removed but I would hardly find anybody on this planet who wouldn't recognize iMac.
This is what I call incompetence, not rejecting of similars.
-
I voted iStock because their submission process is ridiculous and their "not suitable for stock" guidelines are rarely followed consistently. I know submission process is not part of your poll, but rejections really burn when you go through a submission obstacle course like the one at iStock (they really need to take heed to FeaturePics or 123RF's process). Istock accepts some of the most "unsuitable" things from me and then reject "suitable" things. The worst is after being corrected once or twice, they decide it's "not suitable for stock." Scout is restrictive and also a waste of time (just resubmit the image instead of arguing). They are very, very inconsistent and I've given up trying to understand and create work that I thought they would accept in that silly "Vector Do's and Don'ts". Simply put: They just reject things to reject or have some kind of conspiracy against non-exclusives. I programmed my mail software to send their notices directly to the trash (I think that contributed to reducing my stress factor).
I'd give GraphicRiver 2nd place worst. Their submission process is worse than iStock and their rejection reasons are beyond comprehension and inappropriate (inappropriate in that they should pay us a heckofalot more to fit their model and processes). If iStock didn't exist—which might happen one day if they keep up the fumbles—and I had a 38% acceptance rate at GraphicRiver, GraphicRiver would take 1st place. They seem sincere, but their "standards" allow no room for obtuse and imperfect hand-drawn work such as mine.
Dreamstime would be 3rd because they accept more than they reject. But their rejections are quite "istockian." They often make no sense. Those rejections they make for "similar" images are excessive. Their vector submission process needs to be improved.
Veer and Crestock ties at 4th worst for silly rejection reasons. They obviously are understaffed and probably want to err on the side of caution. So maybe they reject more than accept to reduce chances of getting stuck with possible technical problems in the files.
Fotolia, Canstock, Bigstock, GraphicLeftovers, FeaturePics, Panthermedia, Alamy, Stockfuel, 123RF and the others reject very few things. When they do reject it, it's understandable or simply because I put in the wrong info or matching JPG.
Shutterstock would not be on my list (so far). They predictably reject many of my abstract seamless patterns or admittedly boring flowers. There is one reviewer there that rejects all of my work when he/she gets it. That person obviously hates my work (cites Low Commercial Value). So I just double check the files, resubmit and enjoy watching the subsequent sales. 8)
As a disclaimer, I am a "newbie" to the field (July 2010). So don't hold that too much against me ;D. I do however, work with a very popular microstock photographer in the microstock services side of my business and he agrees almost entirely with my vote.
-
I voted iStock because their submission process is ridiculous and their "not suitable for stock" guidelines are rarely followed consistently. I know submission process is not part of your poll, but rejections really burn when you go through a submission obstacle course like the one at iStock (they really need to take heed to FeaturePics or 123RF's process). Istock accepts some of the most "unsuitable" things from me and then reject "suitable" things. The worst is after being corrected once or twice, they decide it's "not suitable for stock." Scout is restrictive and also a waste of time (just resubmit the image instead of arguing). They are very, very inconsistent and I've given up trying to understand and create work that I thought they would accept in that silly "Vector Do's and Don'ts". Simply put: They just reject things to reject or have some kind of conspiracy against non-exclusives. I programmed my mail software to send their notices directly to the trash (I think that contributed to reducing my stress factor).
I'd give GraphicRiver 2nd place worst. Their submission process is worse than iStock and their rejection reasons are beyond comprehension and inappropriate (inappropriate in that they should pay us a heckofalot more to fit their model and processes). If iStock didn't exist—which might happen one day if they keep up the fumbles—and I had a 38% acceptance rate at GraphicRiver, GraphicRiver would take 1st place. They seem sincere, but their "standards" allow no room for obtuse and imperfect hand-drawn work such as mine.
Dreamstime would be 3rd because they accept more than they reject. But their rejections are quite "istockian." They often make no sense. Those rejections they make for "similar" images are excessive. Their vector submission process needs to be improved.
Veer and Crestock ties at 4th worst for silly rejection reasons. They obviously are understaffed and probably want to err on the side of caution. So maybe they reject more than accept to reduce chances of getting stuck with possible technical problems in the files.
Fotolia, Canstock, Bigstock, GraphicLeftovers, FeaturePics, Panthermedia, Alamy, Stockfuel, 123RF and the others reject very few things. When they do reject it, it's understandable or simply because I put in the wrong info or matching JPG.
Shutterstock would not be on my list (so far). They predictably reject many of my abstract seamless patterns or admittedly boring flowers. There is one reviewer there that rejects all of my work when he/she gets it. That person obviously hates my work (cites Low Commercial Value). So I just double check the files, resubmit and enjoy watching the subsequent sales. 8)
As a disclaimer, I am a "newbie" to the field (July 2010). So don't hold that too much against me ;D. I do however, work with a very popular microstock photographer in the microstock services side of my business and he agrees almost entirely with my vote.
Pugh! long read! the submission process at IS, is something else, antique, stoneage, you name it. This was about inspectors? right? and I still maintaine, at IS, its enough if youre images are technically sound, never mind composition, creativity or whatever. As long as your image does not contain, noise of haze, at IS, youre accepted.
Cant really be easier then that, can it?
-
. I know quite a lot of buyers, from ordinary buyers up to Ad-agency people, ADs, etc, and I tell you, they are terrible in complaining, I have seen them in action and boy! if they come accross similars, etc, after only 3 to 4, pages they move on to another outlet.
best.
i've never understood why no one has ever come up with a search engine that deals with similars in a realistic way - there's no excuse for 3 or 4 pages of similars - they should present results the way google does - show varipous rdesults, but only show a few similar images, with a link if someone wants to dig deeper -
this would help both types of buyers [and would also eliminate the need for so many LCV rejections by reviewers who really have no clue what the actual value of any image is]. the argument that it would take up too much space is long gone
Great Idea....although personally I am not bothered by similars, the results could be presented in a "tree like" structure. Only one image of a series on top and visible on the search results page with the option to go deeper into. Nevertheless this would undermine my personal search behaviour and I think I would lose some images since too many clicks are involved for me :D
they could also include an option to continue to present results the way you currently prefer
-
as much as I'm making 50% of income from PD and it's very easy effort to upload, their reviews are very random. Uploading the same image 3 times will get u 3 different rejection reason and possible an approval on the 4th...
-
I voted iStock because their submission process is ridiculous and their "not suitable for stock" guidelines are rarely followed consistently. I know submission process is not part of your poll, but rejections really burn when you go through a submission obstacle course like the one at iStock (they really need to take heed to FeaturePics or 123RF's process). Istock accepts some of the most "unsuitable" things from me and then reject "suitable" things. The worst is after being corrected once or twice, they decide it's "not suitable for stock." Scout is restrictive and also a waste of time (just resubmit the image instead of arguing). They are very, very inconsistent and I've given up trying to understand and create work that I thought they would accept in that silly "Vector Do's and Don'ts". Simply put: They just reject things to reject or have some kind of conspiracy against non-exclusives. I programmed my mail software to send their notices directly to the trash (I think that contributed to reducing my stress factor).
I'd give GraphicRiver 2nd place worst. Their submission process is worse than iStock and their rejection reasons are beyond comprehension and inappropriate (inappropriate in that they should pay us a heckofalot more to fit their model and processes). If iStock didn't exist—which might happen one day if they keep up the fumbles—and I had a 38% acceptance rate at GraphicRiver, GraphicRiver would take 1st place. They seem sincere, but their "standards" allow no room for obtuse and imperfect hand-drawn work such as mine.
Dreamstime would be 3rd because they accept more than they reject. But their rejections are quite "istockian." They often make no sense. Those rejections they make for "similar" images are excessive. Their vector submission process needs to be improved.
Veer and Crestock ties at 4th worst for silly rejection reasons. They obviously are understaffed and probably want to err on the side of caution. So maybe they reject more than accept to reduce chances of getting stuck with possible technical problems in the files.
Fotolia, Canstock, Bigstock, GraphicLeftovers, FeaturePics, Panthermedia, Alamy, Stockfuel, 123RF and the others reject very few things. When they do reject it, it's understandable or simply because I put in the wrong info or matching JPG.
Shutterstock would not be on my list (so far). They predictably reject many of my abstract seamless patterns or admittedly boring flowers. There is one reviewer there that rejects all of my work when he/she gets it. That person obviously hates my work (cites Low Commercial Value). So I just double check the files, resubmit and enjoy watching the subsequent sales. 8)
As a disclaimer, I am a "newbie" to the field (July 2010). So don't hold that too much against me ;D. I do however, work with a very popular microstock photographer in the microstock services side of my business and he agrees almost entirely with my vote.
Pugh! long read! the submission process at IS, is something else, antique, stoneage, you name it. This was about inspectors? right? and I still maintaine, at IS, its enough if youre images are technically sound, never mind composition, creativity or whatever. As long as your image does not contain, noise of haze, at IS, youre accepted.
Cant really be easier then that, can it?
It's so easy to spit at people from behind a monitor isn't it! ??? I'm trying to give a thoughtful response. If it's too much to read, then don't bother. Obviously you didn't because I did preface that submission process was different from the poll question. But I gave a supporting argument for the criticism. There's no haze or noise in my drawings. And no, your defense of "technically sound" is not what I've experienced nor many others. No, I disagree. It's not easier than that. So be it. It's their loss. Not ours.
-
Funny. I just had a rejection at Istock :
1. Overfiltered
2. keywords rejected
3. Model release rejected (signed before the shoot date, which is IMHO something that is not forbidden)
and then, the inspector added a "personal touch" : "nice image, please resubmit"
;D No way! If he/she wanted it in the istock collection, he could've deleted a few keywords and accepted the photo.
As TheBlackRhino said : it's their loss.
-
Funny. I just had a rejection at Istock :
1. Overfiltered
2. keywords rejected
3. Model release rejected (signed before the shoot date, which is IMHO something that is not forbidden)
and then, the inspector added a "personal touch" : "nice image, please resubmit"
;D No way! If he/she wanted it in the istock collection, he could've deleted a few keywords and accepted the photo.
As TheBlackRhino said : it's their loss.
But he can't do anything about overfiltering ;) . But of course, you're completely right, they should try a bit harder if they get their hands on a good image (they're rare)
-
....... and I still maintaine, at IS, its enough if youre images are technically sound, never mind composition, creativity or whatever. As long as your image does not contain, noise of haze, at IS, youre accepted.
Cant really be easier then that, can it?
This sounds about right although, how easy depends on complexity of subject matter, tools available and skill. My perception is that the criteria there is pretty Boolean with no imagination or vision (quality = technical quality) so if something is 100% technically ok it will be accepted no matter how derivative, banal or well covered already. On the other hand 97% (slight flaw apparent when viewing 10% of the image from 2 feet) technically ok will probably be rejected no matter what the subject matter. The outcome is that other sites can pretty much provide anything a buyer looks for where IS cannot and folks dropping the crown find that SS, DT and even (God help us) FT are rejecting their technically perfect images because they have tons like that already.
Newbie sour cos his stuff not good enough for IS?? No – I was actually astonished that former IS exclusives were not just accepted 100% at the other sites. I also noticed recently a port on FT with some really creative, complex and interesting to look at images. This was sapphire level so they obviously sell very nicely also. On DT the same person has 10s of thousands of sales and a port of around 10K images on SS which presumably generates many thousands of sales. On IS there are approx 500 images. Of course, this could mean that the photographer just doesn’t like IS or maybe it means IS are shooting themselves in the foot commercially with their acceptance policy.
-
I voted iStock because their submission process is ridiculous and their "not suitable for stock" guidelines are rarely followed consistently. I know submission process is not part of your poll, but rejections really burn when you go through a submission obstacle course like the one at iStock (they really need to take heed to FeaturePics or 123RF's process). Istock accepts some of the most "unsuitable" things from me and then reject "suitable" things. The worst is after being corrected once or twice, they decide it's "not suitable for stock." Scout is restrictive and also a waste of time (just resubmit the image instead of arguing). They are very, very inconsistent and I've given up trying to understand and create work that I thought they would accept in that silly "Vector Do's and Don'ts". Simply put: They just reject things to reject or have some kind of conspiracy against non-exclusives. I programmed my mail software to send their notices directly to the trash (I think that contributed to reducing my stress factor).
I'd give GraphicRiver 2nd place worst. Their submission process is worse than iStock and their rejection reasons are beyond comprehension and inappropriate (inappropriate in that they should pay us a heckofalot more to fit their model and processes). If iStock didn't exist—which might happen one day if they keep up the fumbles—and I had a 38% acceptance rate at GraphicRiver, GraphicRiver would take 1st place. They seem sincere, but their "standards" allow no room for obtuse and imperfect hand-drawn work such as mine.
Dreamstime would be 3rd because they accept more than they reject. But their rejections are quite "istockian." They often make no sense. Those rejections they make for "similar" images are excessive. Their vector submission process needs to be improved.
Veer and Crestock ties at 4th worst for silly rejection reasons. They obviously are understaffed and probably want to err on the side of caution. So maybe they reject more than accept to reduce chances of getting stuck with possible technical problems in the files.
Fotolia, Canstock, Bigstock, GraphicLeftovers, FeaturePics, Panthermedia, Alamy, Stockfuel, 123RF and the others reject very few things. When they do reject it, it's understandable or simply because I put in the wrong info or matching JPG.
Shutterstock would not be on my list (so far). They predictably reject many of my abstract seamless patterns or admittedly boring flowers. There is one reviewer there that rejects all of my work when he/she gets it. That person obviously hates my work (cites Low Commercial Value). So I just double check the files, resubmit and enjoy watching the subsequent sales. 8)
As a disclaimer, I am a "newbie" to the field (July 2010). So don't hold that too much against me ;D. I do however, work with a very popular microstock photographer in the microstock services side of my business and he agrees almost entirely with my vote.
Pugh! long read! the submission process at IS, is something else, antique, stoneage, you name it. This was about inspectors? right? and I still maintaine, at IS, its enough if youre images are technically sound, never mind composition, creativity or whatever. As long as your image does not contain, noise of haze, at IS, youre accepted.
Cant really be easier then that, can it?
It's so easy to spit at people from behind a monitor isn't it! ??? I'm trying to give a thoughtful response. If it's too much to read, then don't bother. Obviously you didn't because I did preface that submission process was different from the poll question. But I gave a supporting argument for the criticism. There's no haze or noise in my drawings. And no, your defense of "technically sound" is not what I've experienced nor many others. No, I disagree. It's not easier than that. So be it. It's their loss. Not ours.
You havent been long in this came, nor have you got many files in your port. Nobody is spitting behind a monitor, nor in front. Lower your tone a bit and you might get heard.
-
This poll's results indicate that Dreamstime Inspectors/Process is the worst; does the reverse stand true -- Big Stock inspectors are the best? ??? ;)
-
This poll's results indicate that Dreamstime Inspectors/Process is the worst; does the reverse stand true -- Big Stock inspectors are the best? ??? ;)
For me BS reviewers are really the best. If they reject exceptionally my image, usually they are right. At least they give me exact reason of rejection. No "we don't need this image", "We have reviewed your file and this is not quite what we're looking for" or "We are not interested in this image."
-
If I have to pick the best out there:
DP of course
FT second (rejections are rare lately)
I'm not even supplying BS & CS anymore, no sales, waste of my time, but rejections for both are rare indeed.
-
^^Why do you even bother then? I don't anymore and I had sales that were actually decent for a mid tier agency (meaning pathetic really)
honestly, I don't bother anymore, cos now I'd run into the situation that if I did make a sale how long would it take to get to the minimum payout?
-
I assume that all agencies have competent reviewers and that the reviewers work after more or less strict guidelines from the agency.
The contributors should not blame the reviewers, but can make a note of how well he fits with the agency´s choice of pictures.
It is the agency who chooses the pictures.
as well as it is the contributor who chooses if he will deliver.
However, the inspection- and upload interface is also the agency´s interface with the contributor and that shows different degrees of arrogance. Im astonished how arrogant some of the agencies are, mostly IS with their extremely annoying and time wasting upload procedure, and when it comes to rejections, even more annoying how they waste my time with "can resubmit". So therefore , many times, I decide not to waste it, which is their 84% loss.
So 84% is actually the price of arrogance towards the contributers, I wonder if they have thought about it.
Or even worse..
Because the more of the work and responsibilities in the process they push onto the contributers, the more they waste.
-
i agree! interface, uploading process, etc, is totally ancient, boring and time consuming. A well respected, x-employee of Getty, told me. The IS/Getty. have had it their own way for such a long time, theyve become blind to changes, progress, etc, they havent seen or rather understood, that they are more or less playing second fiddle nowdays.
Its a shock to the entire system and as we know, you cant teach an old dog to sit. The reviewing process and (only sometimes) the incompetance is fightening.
A reviewer, can not see that behind a "cut-out" there is another outline, belonging to another subject, but instead calls it " rough cut-out".
A week back and after a 5 months absence, I actually resumed uploading to IS, 15, shots, 11, were accepted but the other 4, came back with the same incompetant glib. Who do they think theyre fooling? Ive done digital work since, 92, drumscanning, the lot.
Bottom line is: Its become an amateur site, no matter what cr#p, is uploaded, its accepted as long as the reviewer finds his way to the computer and this is probably the way Getty wants it. Suits them fine, I suppose.
-
DT owns the abillity to reject bestsellers and also make some profit out of nonsellers. That made me sometimes speechless and sometimes i wish i could tell them how much profit they had could earned by another policy, but they are Dreamstime ... different.
-
I vote for iStock.
I hate their conception of "noise"
It is absurd that they reject any image with a minimum of noise in the darkest shadows, but accept anything over-denoised (like plastic)…
-
DT owns the abillity to reject bestsellers and also make some profit out of nonsellers. That made me sometimes speechless and sometimes i wish i could tell them how much profit they had could earned by another policy, but they are Dreamstime ... different.
I recently got one of their notices about deletion of an older image that hadn't sold. That image had earned me an EL on SS not 2 days before. It would be nice if there was some appeal process. Somehow paying 60 cents for someone to redo my keywording, which works fine elsewhere, seems like a petty humilation.
-
Ridiculous! ;D
I forgot how crazy their notices were until I read your post.
I have programmed my email to send all rejection and acceptance notices from istuck to the trash. There is not one iota of logic or methodology to their processes.
Funny. I just had a rejection at Istock :
1. Overfiltered
2. keywords rejected
3. Model release rejected (signed before the shoot date, which is IMHO something that is not forbidden)
and then, the inspector added a "personal touch" : "nice image, please resubmit"
;D No way! If he/she wanted it in the istock collection, he could've deleted a few keywords and accepted the photo.
As TheBlackRhino said : it's their loss.
-
PM- after month they reject sometimes photos from me, which I can hardly remember 8)
-
Funny. I just had a rejection at Istock :
...
3. Model release rejected (signed before the shoot date, which is IMHO something that is not forbidden)
I thought that the signature had to be on the shoot date, and that was confirmed here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351695&messageid=6849001 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351695&messageid=6849001)
That said, they don't seem to have updated the manual with that information:
http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/training-manuals/photography/model-property-releases-model-releases (http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/training-manuals/photography/model-property-releases-model-releases)
-
.
-
Funny. I just had a rejection at Istock :
...
3. Model release rejected (signed before the shoot date, which is IMHO something that is not forbidden)
I thought that the signature had to be on the shoot date, and that was confirmed here:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351695&messageid=6849001[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351695&messageid=6849001[/url])
That said, they don't seem to have updated the manual with that information:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/training-manuals/photography/model-property-releases-model-releases[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/training-manuals/photography/model-property-releases-model-releases[/url])
I read the "shot date on model release to match the shot date of the photo". Nothing about a signature.
True.
-
I had many files accepted at Istock via the "Scout" thing due to inspector mistakes but in general they are unbiased maybe a little bit picky but they know what they are doing. anyway the most ridiculous rejection I've ever seen came from Dreamstime, I don't know about their photos inspection but they sure know #hit about vector illustration; not to mention their annoying uploading system (for vector), daaah.
-
Just for fun:
Today iS has rejected one of my photos of cuscus in a little plate.
Reason: The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject.
{[ Agriculture, Dieting, Dinner, Dishware, Meal, milling, Refreshment]}
( I asked them if "Are you joking? Or you just don't know what is cuscus???" )
-
.
-
^
Maybe Refreshment is not relevant, and maybe Dinner can be considered as spam, not the other.
And they have accepted a similar image (just changed the main product), but with bulgur instead of cuscus, with exactly the same keywords, except "cuscus" that I did not use for the bulgur image.
So, where is the coherence?
And, btw, you don't reject a photo when 2 keywords on 30 or 50 are not absolutely right…
-
.
-
^^
Are you paid by iS??
You've sold your soul to the devil :D :D
-
IS inspection, although being professional regarding image quality failed with "The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject". Recently they remove few most relevant keywords from 3d illustration.
-
^^
Are you paid by iS??
You've sold your soul to the devil :D :D
ah no, you are hurting all of us when you keyword spam.
we had couscous tonight, with chicken, my 8yo loves it, but that doesn't mean child, children, chicken, kid, parent, school lunches is relevant, even if in my world it makes sense.
we had couscous last Christmas... but that's also irrelevant
-
^
Maybe Refreshment is not relevant, and maybe Dinner can be considered as spam, not the other.
And they have accepted a similar image (just changed the main product), but with bulgur instead of cuscus, with exactly the same keywords, except "cuscus" that I did not use for the bulgur image.
So, where is the coherence?
And, btw, you don't reject a photo when 2 keywords on 30 or 50 are not absolutely right…
Actually, iStock say they do reject for poor keywords. Unfortunately most of the inspectors don't seem to look at keywords, and in your case, the problem was that your bulgur image was accepted with poor keywords.
That said, there are some bizarre keyword removals.
-
true. and I don't understand why they reject the whole image, why not just delete those keywords?
-
true. and I don't understand why they reject the whole image, why not just delete those keywords?
To teach us to keyword better first time.
If they just did it, everyone would just spam leaving the inspectors having to waste time deleting inappropriate keywords. (a slightly odd exclusive perk is that they get their keywords deleted)
After a few keyword rejections, people should learn fast.
If only the inspectors were consistent on this. There is still far too much spam getting through. (I know that some people add the spam after acceptance.)
Though I must admit some of my very few deletions have been controversial, e.g. Ecuador from a photo shot in Ecuador [i.e. not a random object which just happened to be shot there) (actually got a really nice apology for that one).
-
Well, I will be more careful next time. :P
I am sorry if these poor reviewers will have too much work before of me. 8)
-
.
-
^
Maybe my english is not so perfect as your, but your arrogance is surely to the highest level, and your sense of humor to the lowest…
-
maxal and tickstock need to lay off eachother. Whoever continues the little spat after this post will be given a little break.
-
DT is by far the worst for me, rejecting almost everything now whereas in the past they accepted . It is very disheartening and confusing.
-
One thing that happened recently at iStock really ticked me off. I submitted a video and waited the 3-4 weeks inspections time. They came back an said there was an extra frame in the beginning and to correct and resubmit and it will be accepted. So it turns out there was an extra frame so I removed it and resubmitted...3-4 weeks later it was rejected for market saturation or something along those lines...what a waste of time. They could of added that from the start and not offered the promise of it being accepted. It really made me mad. First they should have a shorter queue if fixing a quick error and resubmitting, and second they should have a log of the submitted clip to see they all ready stated they would accept it so the 2nd inspector could at least take that into consideration.
-
One thing that happened recently at iStock really ticked me off. I submitted a video and waited the 3-4 weeks inspections time. They came back an said there was an extra frame in the beginning and to correct and resubmit and it will be accepted. So it turns out there was an extra frame so I removed it and resubmitted...3-4 weeks later it was rejected for market saturation or something along those lines...what a waste of time. They could of added that from the start and not offered the promise of it being accepted. It really made me mad. First they should have a shorter queue if fixing a quick error and resubmitting, and second they should have a log of the submitted clip to see they all ready stated they would accept it so the 2nd inspector could at least take that into consideration.
Who cares about IS, at all?
-
.
-
One thing that happened recently at iStock really ticked me off. I submitted a video and waited the 3-4 weeks inspections time. They came back an said there was an extra frame in the beginning and to correct and resubmit and it will be accepted. So it turns out there was an extra frame so I removed it and resubmitted...3-4 weeks later it was rejected for market saturation or something along those lines...what a waste of time. They could of added that from the start and not offered the promise of it being accepted. It really made me mad. First they should have a shorter queue if fixing a quick error and resubmitting, and second they should have a log of the submitted clip to see they all ready stated they would accept it so the 2nd inspector could at least take that into consideration.
Who cares about IS, at all?
What's the point of that comment? You and the others in the hate club cam whine all you want. They may have poor communication, but my earnings are still higher at iStock. A lot of the other crap going on there is trivial and a lot of speculation.
-
Who cares about IS, at all?
You? Why else post?
Yup, yet again:
"If Billy cracked corn, and I don't care" why did you write a song about it?
-
I cant get anything accepted on Fotolia anymore. My acceptance ratio has gone up across the board, except for fotolia where its worse then ever. Just do not get it.
-
One thing that happened recently at iStock really ticked me off. I submitted a video and waited the 3-4 weeks inspections time. They came back an said there was an extra frame in the beginning and to correct and resubmit and it will be accepted. So it turns out there was an extra frame so I removed it and resubmitted...3-4 weeks later it was rejected for market saturation or something along those lines...what a waste of time. They could of added that from the start and not offered the promise of it being accepted. It really made me mad. First they should have a shorter queue if fixing a quick error and resubmitting, and second they should have a log of the submitted clip to see they all ready stated they would accept it so the 2nd inspector could at least take that into consideration.
Who cares about IS, at all?
I agree. I don`t think he wanted to offend anyone .. for me I just closed the "istock folder" and left it to RIP. It is done. Many of us have gone through more or less painful processes with this company, stopped uploading, stopped checking, deleted accounts and finally just don`t care anymore.
-
I believe it's Jimmy - and because the massa's gone away? 8) I won't bother with the rest of the thread. "I don't care if it rains or freezes, long as I got my..."
Who cares about IS, at all?
You? Why else post?
Yup, yet again:
"If Billy cracked corn, and I don't care" why did you write a song about it?
-
---edited---
-
Istock by far. they gave me badly done isolation on photos that were not isolated. They have monkeys pushing buttons.
-
I cant get anything accepted on Fotolia anymore. My acceptance ratio has gone up across the board, except for fotolia where its worse then ever. Just do not get it.
Same here, I don't have a clue why.
-
Istock by far. they gave me badly done isolation on photos that were not isolated. They have monkeys pushing buttons.
I agree with you, I had a similar problem with a photo realized on white background and no isolation at all.
And they have rejected two of my images because of noise… They were not photos but 3D renders :o …
-
Istock by far. they gave me badly done isolation on photos that were not isolated. They have monkeys pushing buttons.
I agree with you, I had a similar problem with a photo realized on white background and no isolation at all.
And they have rejected two of my images because of noise… They were not photos but 3D renders :o …
I didn't know Beppe Grillo was a 3d artist, i thought he was only a stupid Italian comic.
-
for me shutterstock is on top 1 ranking. actually, months before i quite, regarding uploading process - shutterstock was absolute marker for me "which files will be accepted by istock". / every single one that was rejected (the best "no" from shutterstock for me is "we do not feel that focus is ..." (who the f...dk gives a dam what you feel? :) )) was accepted on istock, and until now earned me some bucks.
*yesterday i visited one fellow here where i live, he is indie - and had acception/rejection emails from ss day before - i see they are still sticked to this. (**excellent images imho, -will earn some money to it's owner, i am sure about that).
-
Cutcaster >:(
I uploaded around 700 images all at once onto Cutcaster to test sales, and had very high acceptance (over 90%).
Over the following few months I uploaded a further around 500 and they sat stuck in review cue for over 3 months.
Yesterday I sent a polite email notifying them of this fact and today checked that all but 6 of those 500 were automatically rejected with the same reason 'we are not looking for this at the moment'!!!
The files were the same range of subject matter and same caliber or better as I upgraded my camera to a D600 and always shoot raw (I've been a professional for 20 years and currently university professor of photography).
Thank you cutcaster for wasting my time, I'm shocked by this attitude "oh we're too busy or don't care and will reject everything so we solve your queue problem"