pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Rejections at SS  (Read 18873 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ACS

« Reply #50 on: January 29, 2014, 10:22 »
+1
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 »
+1
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 »
0
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  ;) :)

« Reply #53 on: January 29, 2014, 17:46 »
+3
... 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 »
0
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.

« Reply #55 on: January 29, 2014, 18:22 »
0
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

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #56 on: January 29, 2014, 18:26 »
+2
@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.

« Reply #57 on: January 29, 2014, 19:17 »
-1
... 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.

« Last Edit: January 29, 2014, 19:52 by stockastic »

« Reply #58 on: January 29, 2014, 19:51 »
0
afs= auto focus  Silent

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #59 on: January 30, 2014, 05:44 »
0
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.

« Reply #60 on: February 03, 2014, 21:14 »
+5
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


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
6022 Views
Last post April 26, 2020, 10:57
by Uncle Pete
Rejections

Started by PZF Canva

5 Replies
3936 Views
Last post September 16, 2020, 22:55
by PhotoBomb
4 Replies
10216 Views
Last post March 16, 2022, 15:21
by Uncle Pete
5 Replies
5056 Views
Last post August 24, 2022, 05:54
by Mimi the Cat
258 Replies
32619 Views
Last post August 11, 2023, 06:22
by Injustice for all

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors