Author Topic: Rejections at SS (Read 19117 times)

aly · « **on:** January 27, 2014, 19:28 »

Back to the bad old days -only 7 out of 127 accepted today and all out of focus!! Last time it was poor lighting and now its focus. What will it be next time? Please let us have some consistent reviewing-must admit the last 2 weeks were really good. But so up and down.It is so frustrating not to mention time consuming.

Mantis · « **Reply #1 on:** January 27, 2014, 19:31 »

That's a lot of rejections. Either you got Atilla or there was real quality issues. If you dare to pose some of the rejected images I am sure peeps will chime in.

Asthebelltolls · « **Reply #2 on:** January 27, 2014, 21:31 »

Quote from: aly on January 27, 2014, 19:28

Back to the bad old days -only 7 out of 127 accepted today and all out of focus!!

The reason why I'll never submit more than three with the SS. Too much time wasted. I've had better luck the past few submissions and was hoping that the SS was off its high horse but you're proof the SS is still out of focus.

Goofy · « **Reply #3 on:** January 27, 2014, 22:52 »

Let's see some of the rejected images for us to help you.

I am over 90% accepted images this month thus don't feel that SS is being too harsh.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #4 on:** January 28, 2014, 03:15 »

I can't help wondering if someone uploading 127 images at once is paying much attention to them. I know I spend an average 15 minutes per image in processing - even though the final result doesn't look much different from what I start with.

nicku · « **Reply #5 on:** January 28, 2014, 03:38 »

Quote from: Goofy on January 27, 2014, 22:52

Let's see some of the rejected images for us to help you.

I am over 90% accepted images this month thus don't feel that SS is being too harsh.

+1

aly · « **Reply #6 on:** January 28, 2014, 06:15 »

I have spent 3 days uploading 127 images after RAW processing, PS CS6 and cropping etc.I assure you it was a slow task as I am meticulous in what I am doing.

Lodimup · « **Reply #7 on:** January 28, 2014, 07:57 »

Quote from: aly on January 28, 2014, 06:15

I have spent 3 days uploading 127 images after RAW processing, PS CS6 and cropping etc.I assure you it was a slow task as I am meticulous in what I am doing.

I used to do the same thing and submit 80+ pictures at a time per week and get random rejections. Now I submit batches of 20+ every few days. This way, if something get rejected for weird reason I can find the image much easier and fix the issue. Most whole batch rejections are invalid though.

nicku · « **Reply #8 on:** January 28, 2014, 07:59 »

Quote from: Lodimup on January 28, 2014, 07:57

Quote from: aly on January 28, 2014, 06:15
I have spent 3 days uploading 127 images after RAW processing, PS CS6 and cropping etc.I assure you it was a slow task as I am meticulous in what I am doing.

I used to do the same thing and submit 80+ pictures at a time per week and get random rejections. Now I submit batches of 20+ every few days. This way, if something get rejected for weird reason I can find the image much easier and fix the issue. Most whole batch rejections are invalid though.

Same thing here...
+1

JPSDK · « **Reply #9 on:** January 28, 2014, 10:06 »

I cannot imagine uploading 127 images, let alone having so many pictures. Unless they are editorial.

Sometimes I photograph a model, and take maybe 300 images.
All sharp and nice, except for a percentage of awkwards. But I would only upload, maybe 10, to see how they sell, and since they dont, I wont fish in that pond again, untill I get an idea for a composite concept and can use one of them.

How can you guys produce so many pictures?

ACS · « **Reply #10 on:** January 28, 2014, 11:14 »

I never uploaded more than 10 shots in one batch to SS so far. And when I uploaded, that 10 were of combination of 2-3 different subjects. I wonder if those 127 were of the same or similar subjects? What about the commercial values? Nature/landscape shots, model shots, isolated objects etc.? Even though thay said focus as the reason, reviewers might have thought that they were not suitable as stock. If possible provide some examples.

Goofy · « **Reply #11 on:** January 28, 2014, 11:51 »

Yet, you haven't uploaded a single rejected image for us to make good sound suggestions or comments on. We cannot fight with our hands tied behind our backs on this battle...

disorderly · « **Reply #12 on:** January 28, 2014, 12:01 »

It's clear to me there's at least one reviewer with a bug up his butt. I've been submitting batches of 20 from a studio shoot. Same model, same lighting, same editing. And every batch up until yesterday was 100% accepted. Then I get a review with every single image rejected, all for the same reason: Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues and/or incorrect white balance. Anyone care to tell me what's wrong with the lighting on one of these that's acceptable on the other?

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #13 on:** January 28, 2014, 12:28 »

Quote from: disorderly on January 28, 2014, 12:01

It's clear to me there's at least one reviewer with a bug up his butt. I've been submitting batches of 20 from a studio shoot. Same model, same lighting, same editing. And every batch up until yesterday was 100% accepted. Then I get a review with every single image rejected, all for the same reason: Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues and/or incorrect white balance. Anyone care to tell me what's wrong with the lighting on one of these that's acceptable on the other?

It is clear to me too… a bug or a virus…
Or just a lack of RAM………

I don't see any problem of lighting or white balance in these images, even if personally I would have preferred the images a little lighter, but this is only a question of personal taste not a question of exposure or WB.
Maybe the inspector likes lighter images too, but does not respect your legitimate point of view/interpretation…

This kind of rejection happens continuously (at least to me), at a point that now I upload no more than 5 files at a time.

JPSDK · « **Reply #14 on:** January 28, 2014, 12:42 »

there is purple fringing.

disorderly · « **Reply #15 on:** January 28, 2014, 13:02 »

Quote from: JPSDK on January 28, 2014, 12:42

there is purple fringing.

No, there isn't. Not in the full resolution images. In any event, that doesn't match the reason for the rejection. CA doesn't equate to poor lighting.

Ron · « **Reply #16 on:** January 28, 2014, 13:09 »

Quote from: disorderly on January 28, 2014, 13:02

[. CA doesn't equate to poor lighting.

It does in the SS rejection reason. Poor lighting, WB and CA are the same rejection.

Not saying there is CA, coz I dont see it.

cuppacoffee · « **Reply #17 on:** January 28, 2014, 13:12 »

I mean no disrespect to anyone here and I'm only asking from the perspective of someone who doesn't photograph people but with so many photos of pretty women on isolated backgrounds available at all the microsites is there still a market for them? Do they sell often? What helps them sell better than other "beautiful woman" shots. Again, this is not directed to any one photographer, I'm just trying to understand the market and do not intend to start photographing people (too hard if you don't have a studio and the proper lighting set-up).

Rinderart · « **Reply #18 on:** January 28, 2014, 13:19 »

Quote from: aly on January 27, 2014, 19:28

Back to the bad old days -only 7 out of 127 accepted today and all out of focus!! Last time it was poor lighting and now its focus. What will it be next time? Please let us have some consistent reviewing-must admit the last 2 weeks were really good. But so up and down.It is so frustrating not to mention time consuming.

All Ya have to do is Use the critique forum at SS. But, we will tell you the truth and not what you want to hear. We have some pretty qualified folks there that can Help you. But....Pls post Properly with a full Image and a 100% crop. Very few who complain do this because they don't wanna hear the truth. Focus has been and will always be the #1 Problem we see. Give us a try, We won't bite...Promise. Also..As said submitting that many at one time is a disaster waiting to happen. 20/25 at a time unless your a factory shooter. Even if accepted, they will get buried to fast.

Rinderart · « **Reply #19 on:** January 28, 2014, 13:21 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on January 28, 2014, 13:12

I mean no disrespect to anyone here and I'm only asking from the perspective of someone who doesn't photograph people but with so many photos of pretty women on isolated backgrounds available at all the microsites is there still a market for them? Do they sell often? What helps them sell better than other "beautiful woman" shots. Again, this is not directed to any one photographer, I'm just trying to understand the market and do not intend to start photographing people (too hard if you don't have a studio and the proper lighting set-up).

Depends on the Image. Pretty much Like any other subject.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #20 on:** January 28, 2014, 13:32 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on January 28, 2014, 13:12

I mean no disrespect to anyone here and I'm only asking from the perspective of someone who doesn't photograph people but with so many photos of pretty women on isolated backgrounds available at all the microsites is there still a market for them? Do they sell often? What helps them sell better than other "beautiful woman" shots. Again, this is not directed to any one photographer, I'm just trying to understand the market and do not intend to start photographing people (too hard if you don't have a studio and the proper lighting set-up).

beautiful women? how about apples, tomatoes, business men, beaches, etc? what you are doing isn't already in the searches? pretty much all subjects are very well covered, buyers/designers don't really need new work from us but fresh content/new concepts to upgrade their previous campaigns will look much better than the old and very downloaded picture that everybody has

pretty much the last guy standing shooting new content will be the "richest", it is important that the search engines that are constantly changing help him as well

cuppacoffee · « **Reply #21 on:** January 28, 2014, 13:38 »

Yes, I understand that, it is obvious that certain areas are well covered. I've been doing this for 6 years and have watched the images pile up on all sites. Beautiful woman on white background (and those **blasted** pet cat photos) is an area that many photogs specialize in and they must for a reason. Yes, I know that fashion changes and fresh images should sell. I also know that each site has different search algorithms that place certain images near the top. I get all that. I guess a better question would be to those who shoot these images, have sales kept up with the supply and are they good earners compared to the other subjects they shoot?

heywoody · « **Reply #22 on:** January 28, 2014, 17:06 »

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on January 28, 2014, 12:28

It is clear to me too… a bug or a virus…
Or just a lack of RAM………

I don't see any problem of lighting or white balance in these images, even if personally I would have preferred the images a little lighter, but this is only a question of personal taste not a question of exposure or WB.
Maybe the inspector likes lighter images too, but does not respect your legitimate point of view/interpretation…

This kind of rejection happens continuously (at least to me), at a point that now I upload no more than 5 files at a time.

They're spoiled for choice and be that picky and probably for that. Had 2 early last year like that so now I just do them a tad lighter.

aly · « **Reply #23 on:** January 28, 2014, 17:49 »

A few of my images rejected.

Ron · « **Reply #24 on:** January 28, 2014, 17:51 »

I am sorry but I cant say I disagree with the reviewer.

JPSDK · « **Reply #25 on:** January 28, 2014, 20:28 »

Quote from: disorderly on January 28, 2014, 13:02

Quote from: JPSDK on January 28, 2014, 12:42
there is purple fringing.

No, there isn't. Not in the full resolution images. In any event, that doesn't match the reason for the rejection. CA doesn't equate to poor lighting.

Ok its not purple fringing, its just a little backshine from the backdrop.
Which is normal, when you shoot on white. I have images with worse backshine online.
But it can be what they mean, that the background is too hot.
maybe.

stockastic · « **Reply #26 on:** January 28, 2014, 21:14 »

Quote from: disorderly on January 28, 2014, 13:02

Quote from: JPSDK on January 28, 2014, 12:42
there is purple fringing.

No, there isn't. Not in the full resolution images. In any event, that doesn't match the reason for the rejection. CA doesn't equate to poor lighting.

I'm the guy who keeps saying that SS is using software to automate a first-pass review. Nobody believes me - yet. But on the other hand, SS hasn't denied it, In this case, I'd say some fairly mindless piece of code in that 'bot saw a large area of contiguous pixes that are very dark, all the way down to black, and if an area like that exceeds some size limit, the photo is rejected on the assumption it contains too much shadow. The difference between your 2 photos is that 'rejected' has a larger area of dark pixels - you can see that in the histograms. It apparently exceeded the limit.

Both photos, of course, are fine and have no real technical problems.

This is only speculation, based on just these 2 photos.

JPSDK · « **Reply #27 on:** January 28, 2014, 21:28 »

could be true

disorderly · « **Reply #28 on:** January 28, 2014, 21:50 »

Quote from: stockastic on January 28, 2014, 21:14

This is only speculation, based on just these 2 photos.

Right. And the full batch of rejections included images with composition similar to the ones that were accepted. I chose those two as examples of exposure and white balance; there were plenty of closeups and longer shots in both accepted and rejected batches, so I can't imaging what a reviewing application could have seen that would separate the good from the bad.

disorderly · « **Reply #29 on:** January 28, 2014, 21:52 »

Quote from: JPSDK on January 28, 2014, 20:28

Quote from: disorderly on January 28, 2014, 13:02
Quote from: JPSDK on January 28, 2014, 12:42
there is purple fringing.

No, there isn't. Not in the full resolution images. In any event, that doesn't match the reason for the rejection. CA doesn't equate to poor lighting.
Ok its not purple fringing, its just a little backshine from the backdrop.
Which is normal, when you shoot on white. I have images with worse backshine online.
But it can be what they mean, that the background is too hot.
maybe.

The backdrop is solid white on both the accepted and rejected photos. The subject is isolated perfectly in both groups. There really is no difference between what was accepted and what wasn't.

stockastic · « **Reply #30 on:** January 28, 2014, 21:59 »

Quote from: disorderly on January 28, 2014, 21:50

... I can't imaging what a reviewing application could have seen that would separate the good from the bad.

But isn't the idea that of overly-simplistic, half-baked 'automated reviewing' software actually easier to believe than the alternative - that some of the human reviewers are this disengaged, inexperienced or just plain 'weird" in some way?

What's your explanation?

Lodimup · « **Reply #31 on:** January 28, 2014, 22:04 »

I think image review process is software assisted. This explains why review time is so quick. Reviewers may sometimes don't even look at our actual images.

disorderly · « **Reply #32 on:** January 28, 2014, 22:11 »

Quote from: stockastic on January 28, 2014, 21:59

Quote from: disorderly on January 28, 2014, 21:50
... I can't imaging what a reviewing application could have seen that would separate the good from the bad.

But isn't the idea that of overly-simplistic, half-baked 'automated reviewing' software actually easier to believe than the alternative - that some of the human reviewers are this disengaged, inexperienced or just plain 'weird" in some way?

What's your explanation?

It's speculation of course, but I suspect either malfeasance (easier to press a button to reject than to do your job properly) or incompetence (e.g. a misconfigured display or a computer that can't handle my large image files coupled with a scaling program that introduced artifacts). Once the batch I have in for review is done, I'll resubmit the one that was rejected with a note asking for a more detailed explanation. My guess is that they won't have one. Maybe they'll reject as too similar to previous submissions, but I can't see how the lighting rejection will stand.

JPSDK · « **Reply #33 on:** January 28, 2014, 22:12 »

Quote from: disorderly on January 28, 2014, 21:52

Quote from: JPSDK on January 28, 2014, 20:28
Quote from: disorderly on January 28, 2014, 13:02
Quote from: JPSDK on January 28, 2014, 12:42
there is purple fringing.

No, there isn't. Not in the full resolution images. In any event, that doesn't match the reason for the rejection. CA doesn't equate to poor lighting.
Ok its not purple fringing, its just a little backshine from the backdrop.
Which is normal, when you shoot on white. I have images with worse backshine online.
But it can be what they mean, that the background is too hot.
maybe.

The backdrop is solid white on both the accepted and rejected photos. The subject is isolated perfectly in both groups. There really is no difference between what was accepted and what wasn't.

Sure sure, but there can be surplus spill light from the background. Like if there is too much light on the background and if creeps around the edges of the subject. Im not saying it is a problem, I just noticed a little bit and mistook it for purple fringing.

disorderly · « **Reply #34 on:** January 28, 2014, 22:34 »

Quote from: JPSDK on January 28, 2014, 22:12

Quote from: disorderly on January 28, 2014, 21:52
Quote from: JPSDK on January 28, 2014, 20:28
Quote from: disorderly on January 28, 2014, 13:02
Quote from: JPSDK on January 28, 2014, 12:42
there is purple fringing.

No, there isn't. Not in the full resolution images. In any event, that doesn't match the reason for the rejection. CA doesn't equate to poor lighting.
Ok its not purple fringing, its just a little backshine from the backdrop.
Which is normal, when you shoot on white. I have images with worse backshine online.
But it can be what they mean, that the background is too hot.
maybe.

The backdrop is solid white on both the accepted and rejected photos. The subject is isolated perfectly in both groups. There really is no difference between what was accepted and what wasn't.

Sure sure, but there can be surplus spill light from the background. Like if there is too much light on the background and if creeps around the edges of the subject. Im not saying it is a problem, I just noticed a little bit and mistook it for purple fringing.

Keep in mind that both the accepted and rejected images were taken with the same lighting and the model in the same position. All the images in the first batch were approved (also the second, third, fourth, and fifth); everything in the most recent batch was rejected. Probability suggests that something else has to be at work here. My guess is a different reviewer using different equipment who thought he or she saw something that no one else saw. I believe that reviewer was mistaken.

disorderly · « **Reply #35 on:** January 29, 2014, 00:51 »

To close the loop, I resubmitted the rejected batch with a reference to their earlier batch numbers and a request for a reevaluation or at least an explanation. Two hours later they were all accepted. I'd still like to know why they were rejected the first time, but this is still a good outcome.

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #36 on:** January 29, 2014, 01:47 »

Quote from: heywoody on January 28, 2014, 17:06

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on January 28, 2014, 12:28

It is clear to me too… a bug or a virus…
Or just a lack of RAM………

I don't see any problem of lighting or white balance in these images, even if personally I would have preferred the images a little lighter, but this is only a question of personal taste not a question of exposure or WB.
Maybe the inspector likes lighter images too, but does not respect your legitimate point of view/interpretation…

This kind of rejection happens continuously (at least to me), at a point that now I upload no more than 5 files at a time.

They're spoiled for choice and be that picky and probably for that. Had 2 early last year like that so now I just do them a tad lighter.

The fact is that when printing in offset the blacks and darker colors often tend to blacken/darken and lose a lot of details. But I don't know if inspectors consider it.

nicku · « **Reply #37 on:** January 29, 2014, 01:52 »

Quote from: aly on January 28, 2014, 17:49

A few of my images rejected.

Agree with the reviewer....

Here is one of my picture initially rejected and accepted by another reviewer 2nd time.

ACS · « **Reply #38 on:** January 29, 2014, 01:56 »

Quote from: aly on January 28, 2014, 17:49

A few of my images rejected.

I think those four images have very low commercial value. Sorry.

(Have you ever applied to istockphoto? Seemingly they hardly reject anything nowadays.)

grey1 · « **Reply #39 on:** January 29, 2014, 03:12 »

Quote from: stockastic on January 28, 2014, 21:14

Quote from: disorderly on January 28, 2014, 13:02
Quote from: JPSDK on January 28, 2014, 12:42
there is purple fringing.

No, there isn't. Not in the full resolution images. In any event, that doesn't match the reason for the rejection. CA doesn't equate to poor lighting.

I'm the guy who keeps saying that SS is using software to automate a first-pass review. Nobody believes me - yet. But on the other hand, SS hasn't denied it, In this case, I'd say some fairly mindless piece of code in that 'bot saw a large area of contiguous pixes that are very dark, all the way down to black, and if an area like that exceeds some size limit, the photo is rejected on the assumption it contains too much shadow. The difference between your 2 photos is that 'rejected' has a larger area of dark pixels - you can see that in the histograms. It apparently exceeded the limit.

Both photos, of course, are fine and have no real technical problems.

This is only speculation, based on just these 2 photos.

Softwares to determine noise, haze and other technical faults regarding digital capture can easily be obtained by Binuscan and Barco. They have been around for ages.
It would surprise me if they had the time not to use softwares considering they go through over 50000 files per week or whatever it is.

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #40 on:** January 29, 2014, 03:29 »

Quote from: aly on January 28, 2014, 17:49

A few of my images rejected.

Even so little I see noise and artifacts.
(Or it is because you resized and compressed for the forum?)

Quote from: ACS on January 29, 2014, 01:56

(Have you ever applied to istockphoto? Seemingly they hardly reject anything nowadays.)

They hardly sell anything too…

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #41 on:** January 29, 2014, 04:30 »

Nicku, I'd say that baby is overexposed, if you move the black slider up to the end of the histogram the exposure looks better. That's probably what the first reviewer objected to.

Lodimup · « **Reply #42 on:** January 29, 2014, 04:49 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 29, 2014, 04:30

Nicku, I'd say that baby is overexposed, if you move the black slider up to the end of the histogram the exposure looks better. That's probably what the first reviewer objected to.

I find over expose/under expose concept stupid. As long as all details are available i.e. no clipping, it should be fine. This baby image is a absolutely fine. It's called 'style'.

aly · « **Reply #43 on:** January 29, 2014, 05:25 »

Yes I compressed for the forum with shrink pic-may be noise as well as 55-250mm lens is a bit noisy at times even though noise reduced in PS C6 in images.

Ron · « **Reply #44 on:** January 29, 2014, 05:28 »

Lighting doesnt change on compressed images.

fritz · « **Reply #45 on:** January 29, 2014, 05:43 »

Quote from: aly on January 29, 2014, 05:25

Yes I compressed for the forum with shrink pic-may be noise as well as 55-250mm lens is a bit noisy at times even though noise reduced in PS C6 in images.

There is no noisy lens, sensor is the one who make noise!

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #46 on:** January 29, 2014, 06:08 »

Quote from: fritz on January 29, 2014, 05:43

Quote from: aly on January 29, 2014, 05:25
Yes I compressed for the forum with shrink pic-may be noise as well as 55-250mm lens is a bit noisy at times even though noise reduced in PS C6 in images.
There is no noise lens, sensor is the one who make noise!

Neighbors sometime at night too…

ACS · « **Reply #47 on:** January 29, 2014, 06:45 »

Quote from: fritz on January 29, 2014, 05:43

Quote from: aly on January 29, 2014, 05:25
Yes I compressed for the forum with shrink pic-may be noise as well as 55-250mm lens is a bit noisy at times even though noise reduced in PS C6 in images.
There is no noise lens, sensor is the one who make noise!

If it is not an AF-S, a lens can make noise when focusing... (

)

fritz · « **Reply #48 on:** January 29, 2014, 08:55 »

Like my Canon EF 50mm F2.5 Macro guess is the noisiest lens ever had

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #49 on:** January 29, 2014, 09:59 »

Quote from: ACS on January 29, 2014, 06:45

Quote from: fritz on January 29, 2014, 05:43
Quote from: aly on January 29, 2014, 05:25
Yes I compressed for the forum with shrink pic-may be noise as well as 55-250mm lens is a bit noisy at times even though noise reduced in PS C6 in images.
There is no noise lens, sensor is the one who make noise!

If it is not an AF-S, a lens can make noise when focusing... ( )

Can you explain me that?

ACS · « **Reply #50 on:** January 29, 2014, 10:22 »

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on January 29, 2014, 09:59

Quote from: ACS on January 29, 2014, 06:45
Quote from: fritz on January 29, 2014, 05:43
Quote from: aly on January 29, 2014, 05:25
Yes I compressed for the forum with shrink pic-may be noise as well as 55-250mm lens is a bit noisy at times even though noise reduced in PS C6 in images.
There is no noise lens, sensor is the one who make noise!

If it is not an AF-S, a lens can make noise when focusing... ( )

Can you explain me that?

Of course.

If a Nikkor lens has a silent wave motor you don't hear noise during autofocus (70-300 AF-S VR). If not, autofocus can be noisy (50 1.8 AF-D).

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #51 on:** January 29, 2014, 13:18 »

Quote from: ACS on January 29, 2014, 10:22

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on January 29, 2014, 09:59
Quote from: ACS on January 29, 2014, 06:45
Quote from: fritz on January 29, 2014, 05:43
Quote from: aly on January 29, 2014, 05:25
Yes I compressed for the forum with shrink pic-may be noise as well as 55-250mm lens is a bit noisy at times even though noise reduced in PS C6 in images.
There is no noise lens, sensor is the one who make noise!

If it is not an AF-S, a lens can make noise when focusing... ( )

Can you explain me that?

Of course.

If a Nikkor lens has a silent wave motor you don't hear noise during autofocus (70-300 AF-S VR). If not, autofocus can be noisy (50 1.8 AF-D).

rotf
you got me!

ACS · « **Reply #52 on:** January 29, 2014, 13:59 »

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on January 29, 2014, 13:18

Quote from: ACS on January 29, 2014, 10:22
Quote from: Beppe Grillo on January 29, 2014, 09:59
Quote from: ACS on January 29, 2014, 06:45
Quote from: fritz on January 29, 2014, 05:43
Quote from: aly on January 29, 2014, 05:25
Yes I compressed for the forum with shrink pic-may be noise as well as 55-250mm lens is a bit noisy at times even though noise reduced in PS C6 in images.
There is no noise lens, sensor is the one who make noise!

If it is not an AF-S, a lens can make noise when focusing... ( )

Can you explain me that?

Of course.

If a Nikkor lens has a silent wave motor you don't hear noise during autofocus (70-300 AF-S VR). If not, autofocus can be noisy (50 1.8 AF-D).

rotf
you got me!

I could write much longer actually

dirkr · « **Reply #53 on:** January 29, 2014, 17:46 »

Quote from: stockastic on January 28, 2014, 21:59

Quote from: disorderly on January 28, 2014, 21:50
... I can't imaging what a reviewing application could have seen that would separate the good from the bad.

But isn't the idea that of overly-simplistic, half-baked 'automated reviewing' software actually easier to believe than the alternative - that some of the human reviewers are this disengaged, inexperienced or just plain 'weird" in some way?

What's your explanation?

I'm working with both people and software in my day job since many years.
I have to say that the idea of humans behaving weird, being inexperienced and un-motivated in their job is a lot easier to swallow than the idea of software consistently producing unconsistent results.

Not saying they are not using software to (partly) automate the reviewing process, but the issues reported many times over (one batch out of many with same subject/style/lighting/processing rejected while the others are accepted) are more likely explained by the human factor.

aly · « **Reply #54 on:** January 29, 2014, 18:14 »

The noise is not in the LENS it is in the images as the more I zoom the more it is noisy result hence I use PSC6 to remove noise from the image even though I try to have ISO 100.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #55 on:** January 29, 2014, 18:22 »

If your original images have noise then you did not get the exposure right. In any case, the contrast was too flat on those examples you posted and you also need to ask yourself what someone is going to pay good money to use them for.
Get the right exposure, the right lighting, the right composition and the right subject and you're away. But it's not as easy as it sounds.

ShadySue · « **Reply #56 on:** January 29, 2014, 18:26 »

@aly - maybe you should also think about your image/composition as a whole. For example, go to Shutterstock and search on 'horses', filter by photo and sort by popular and/or relevant.
Now try to explain to yourself why buyers would choose your horse photo (above) over what's already available there.

stockastic · « **Reply #57 on:** January 29, 2014, 19:17 »

Quote from: dirkr on January 29, 2014, 17:46

Quote from: stockastic on January 28, 2014, 21:59
Quote from: disorderly on January 28, 2014, 21:50
... I can't imaging what a reviewing application could have seen that would separate the good from the bad.

But isn't the idea that of overly-simplistic, half-baked 'automated reviewing' software actually easier to believe than the alternative - that some of the human reviewers are this disengaged, inexperienced or just plain 'weird" in some way?

What's your explanation?

I'm working with both people and software in my day job since many years.
I have to say that the idea of humans behaving weird, being inexperienced and un-motivated in their job is a lot easier to swallow than the idea of software consistently producing unconsistent results.

Not saying they are not using software to (partly) automate the reviewing process, but the issues reported many times over (one batch out of many with same subject/style/lighting/processing rejected while the others are accepted) are more likely explained by the human factor.

I actually think both things are happening. They're trying to take in an absolutely insane volume of images, so they're hiring new inspectors and not adequately training them; and they're bringing automated reviewing applications on line, and debugging them on the fly, and fiddling with the acceptance parameters. And everyone is under pressure to make quicker accept/reject decisions because time spent looking at images costs money.

JPSDK · « **Reply #58 on:** January 29, 2014, 19:51 »

afs= auto focus Silent

gillian vann · « **Reply #59 on:** January 30, 2014, 05:44 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on January 28, 2014, 13:12

I mean no disrespect to anyone here and I'm only asking from the perspective of someone who doesn't photograph people but with so many photos of pretty women on isolated backgrounds available at all the microsites is there still a market for them? Do they sell often? What helps them sell better than other "beautiful woman" shots. Again, this is not directed to any one photographer, I'm just trying to understand the market and do not intend to start photographing people (too hard if you don't have a studio and the proper lighting set-up).

+1, although fashions change, and the ethnicity that's currently trending shifts the game. But, didn't Yuri win an award for hottest models? this genre is highly competitive.

ArenaCreative · « **Reply #60 on:** February 03, 2014, 21:14 »

Mix up subjects in your batches, don't make your batches too large, and instead submit regularly with momentum. Otherwise if you want to upload 200 in a clip and think the poor soul who has to dig through all that isn't going to be totally scintillated by your creativity, then think again. There are real live people approving these images, and they're human. Lauren knows what it's like to be on the other side of things, and so do I.

It's not even that strategic to upload in large lumps if you want to get the most exposure for your images... think about it. New stuff gets shown first in search results. What's better? 50 images of pretty people pics to the top of the pile once a week, or 10 new approved images to the top of the pile each day?

Take everything with a grain of salt. IF you have a specific feeling that a certain image shouldn't have been rejected, fix what you can, resubmit it possibly even with a note, and try again... if it's worth your time. If not, then more on. This is all part of the game of stock imagery. Hope some of this is insightful. Sometimes even I don't follow my own advice

Especially about the momentum part. I prefer to store my pretty images on my hard drive and procrastinate submitting them, because after 8 years doing this full time I'm getting bored out of my mind with it all. Either way, a job is a job... work is work, and I'm very thankful.

And to let you guys know, rejections never stop *. They never get easier to bear either. With persistence, trial and error; you'll learn how to avoid the stupid types.

-Todd

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Rejections at SS (Read 19117 times)

Goofy

Goofy

Beppe Grillo

Ron

cuppacoffee

Rinderart

Rinderart

cuppacoffee

Ron

Beppe Grillo

Beppe Grillo

Ron

Beppe Grillo

Beppe Grillo

Beppe Grillo

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors