Really starting to get irritated with Dreamstime.

blamb

« Reply #25 on: December 14, 2011, 14:25 »

#link

Also irritating: "Illustration is too simple" rejection for pics of cartoon eyeglasses and cartoon underwear. Glasses. Underwear. How complex are they going to be??? Angry


	Ignore \| Logged

cthoman

« Reply #26 on: December 14, 2011, 14:30 »

#link

Quote from: blamb on December 14, 2011, 14:25

Also irritating: "Illustration is too simple" rejection for pics of cartoon eyeglasses and cartoon underwear. Glasses. Underwear. How complex are they going to be??? Angry

Excellent! Less competition for my cartoon underwear. Grin

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-underwear-smiling-image10630522


	Ignore \| Logged

qwerty

« Reply #27 on: December 14, 2011, 15:48 »

#link

The reason Dreamstime keep pushing this no similars angle is the level based sales they have. Prices go up the more they sell.

I can understand some of the reasoning behind this. If you had almost identical illustrations/photos then buyers will buy the cheaper one. If you have a level 5 that selling really well and you upload a "new and improved" copy then buyers will buy the cheaper one. Less money for Dreamstime and less money for the contributors.

I believe (like everybody) that they are taking this reasoning too far and their rejections for too similar are over the top as explained by many of the example here and in other threads. I wish that they would take time to actually review if the images are too similar and accept them if there are differences. eg different subjects, allow some different angles of the same subject.

There is a sensible middle ground between too few and too many photos and it looks like they've haven't found it yet.


	Ignore \| Logged

stockastic

« Reply #28 on: December 14, 2011, 16:04 »

#link

Unfortunately I have been pinning more of my future hopes on DT, having given up on IS.


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #29 on: December 14, 2011, 19:23 »

#link


	Ignore \| Logged

luissantos84

« Reply #30 on: December 14, 2011, 20:01 »

#link

KB thats a very easy one, DT loves "newbies" I am not saying that those pics aren´t done well but they are from very new contributors..

I will never understand really, they reject because of their levels (I dont agree but.. ok)

BUT then approved the exact same type of pictures done by new contributors.. they really want "old" contributors to stop working and want "newbies" to sell level 0 Cheesy

p.s: what I am saying is that if a new contributor upload some of our work it would certainly go in easily..


« Last Edit: December 14, 2011, 20:02 by luissantos84 »	Ignore \| Logged

gbalex

« Reply #31 on: December 15, 2011, 00:36 »

#link

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 14, 2011, 20:01

KB thats a very easy one, DT loves "newbies" I am not saying that those pics aren´t done well but they are from very new contributors..

I will never understand really, they reject because of their levels (I dont agree but.. ok)

BUT then approved the exact same type of pictures done by new contributors.. they really want "old" contributors to stop working and want "newbies" to sell level 0 Cheesy

p.s: what I am saying is that if a new contributor upload some of our work it would certainly go in easily..

I have noticed this occurring at more than a few sites, some are more blatant than others.


	Ignore \| Logged

digitalexpression

« Reply #32 on: December 15, 2011, 14:05 »

#link

DT admins read posts on this site so I wonder what they think of contributors being so ticked at their policies. Personally I'd just like to see consistency. A while ago they announced they would be going through the catalogue and weeding out images that went against their similar policy. I had a couple from my port deleted at that time. And yet:

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-paradise-in-sunset-image17810294
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-pleasure-of-the-sunset-image17775177

My understanding was that any image you could simply flip to place the subject on the other side of the frame would be considered too similar. I guess they missed the above.

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-woman-makes-heart-by-hands-at-sunset-image17888981
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-woman-makes-heart-by-hands-at-sunset-image17888987

Maybe models are exempt. Or finger placement is enough to make it completely different.

http://www.dreamstime.com/silhouette-at-sunset-image16064673
http://www.dreamstime.com/silhouette-at-sunset-image16064602

This one really got me. Maybe the photographer is Serban's cousin. I don't have a problem with the shots or the photographers but it would be nice if they applied the rules fairly with everyone.


	Ignore \| Logged

qwerty

« Reply #33 on: December 15, 2011, 15:31 »

#link

I know your trying to prove the point that its inconsistent but I wouldn't be too happy if it was more portfolio you were using as examples.


	Ignore \| Logged

cascoly

« Reply #34 on: December 15, 2011, 15:45 »

#link

several reviewers seem to think similar TITLES is enough to reject, even though content is completely different


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #35 on: December 15, 2011, 18:20 »

#link

Quote from: digitalexpressionimages on December 15, 2011, 14:05

DT admins read posts on this site. [] Maybe the photographer is Serban's cousin.

Ouch. Not very clever, isn't it? Wink


	Ignore \| Logged

digitalexpression

« Reply #36 on: December 15, 2011, 22:30 »

#link

Quote from: AttilaTheNun on December 15, 2011, 18:20

Quote from: digitalexpressionimages on December 15, 2011, 14:05

DT admins read posts on this site. [] Maybe the photographer is Serban's cousin.

Ouch. Not very clever, isn't it? Wink

You're not afraid of DT admins are you? I have no fear or reason to watch what I say when the big bad scary admins might read it. I've said far worse. They need to know when their contributors have issues with them. I would not have guessed you'd be so frightened of them. Not clever. Better than being timid. Grow a pair. Wink


	Ignore \| Logged

digitalexpression

« Reply #37 on: December 15, 2011, 22:34 »

#link

Quote from: qwerty on December 15, 2011, 15:31

I know your trying to prove the point that its inconsistent but I wouldn't be too happy if it was more portfolio you were using as examples.

Yeah. That's kind of why I said, in plain english no less, that I had no problem with the shots or the photographers. It's not the photographer's problem it's the reviewers. I can't think of how I could say that clearer. Would smaller words help.

Me no have bad thoughts of picture takers or pictures. You get now?


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #38 on: December 15, 2011, 22:59 »

#link

Quote from: digitalexpressionimages on December 15, 2011, 22:30

I would not have guessed you'd be so frightened of them. Not clever. Better than being timid. Grow a pair. Wink

A few of my issues is that I grew far more than a pair. Wink

The similars problem could be solved by designating a series as such and only the blanket image would show up in searches with a special icon. As for now (and that goes for all sites) the DB is linear. That's really unsustainable in DB'es of over 10M. Canstock made an attempt with its series editor. This would also solve OP's particular problem that is very real.


	Ignore \| Logged

cthoman

« Reply #39 on: December 15, 2011, 23:18 »

#link

I don't really see the point of a series editor when there are subs or cheap XS sizes on a site. Every time I see a whole series of my images downloaded for a few bucks, I feel ripped off. I'm not sure why I'd organize them, so it would happen more often. I'm just saying.


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #40 on: December 15, 2011, 23:48 »

#link

Quote from: cthoman on December 15, 2011, 23:18

Well you're attacking the subs system then or the prices, not the fact that the search engine is overloaded with similars and that my solution of a blanket image would address this issue. By the way, I'm just thinking in a tech way.
Now let me play the advocate of the devil for a moment. Imagine that OP combined all his 50 state stamps on one image. That image would be downloaded a lot by all folks needing just one. It would rise rapidly in the levels, giving him much more total revenue than 50 level 0 images rising to level 1.


	Ignore \| Logged

WarrenPrice

« Reply #41 on: December 16, 2011, 11:07 »

#link

Quote from: AttilaTheNun on December 15, 2011, 23:48

Quote from: cthoman on December 15, 2011, 23:18

Achilles?


	Ignore \| Logged

luissantos84

« Reply #42 on: December 16, 2011, 11:13 »

#link

Quote from: AttilaTheNun on December 15, 2011, 23:48

Quote from: cthoman on December 15, 2011, 23:18

thats might be true and makes sense but it doesn´t work always, I do have some collections and time to time sell on DT but I never had a high RPD there which in my case means that most of my sales are level 0 or 1, so I am better with 50 files than 1, I am not wasting much my head on DT, of course I will continue to support them but they are my 5th agency :/


	Ignore \| Logged

cthoman

« Reply #43 on: December 16, 2011, 12:52 »

#link

I was just being grumpy. It just seems like there are so many things to fix with some of these agencies. If you fix one problem, then another one springs up.

Oh well, I'll stop complaining and just get in line for my monthly check. Grin


	Ignore \| Logged

jcpjr

« Reply #44 on: December 16, 2011, 13:37 »

#link

Here's a new DT rejection for me:

"Image subject is too specific or niche-oriented. The primary goal of a stock image is to be generic and match as many usage types as possible. Your image is not generic enough..."

Got 2 this morning. One is a country church hidden in woods and the other is a double iron door with a wreath on it. I don't know what they want anymore.


	Ignore \| Logged

stockastic

« Reply #45 on: December 16, 2011, 14:53 »

#link

Quote from: jcpjr on December 16, 2011, 13:37

..
"Image subject is too specific or niche-oriented..."

I don't know what they want anymore.

Neither do I. And neither do they. Gee I thought "specific and niche-oriented" was, well, a huge part of the stock photo market - call me crazy. But don't worry, next time the rejection will be "your image is too generic, we need images that meet buyers' specific needs".

These agencies all know they have mountains of keyword-spammed junk, and want to change, but without spending any money actually cleaning up what they already have. I'm guessing they have their reviewers totally confused, each one having his own interpretation of the latest "guidelines".

DT is particularly creepy because they tie your search rank to how well you play their acceptance guessing game.


« Last Edit: December 16, 2011, 15:20 by stockastic »	Ignore \| Logged

daveh900

« Reply #46 on: December 16, 2011, 15:42 »

#link

Quote from: jcpjr on December 16, 2011, 13:37

Yep, I got one of those for a graphic that featured the entire USA... too specific I guess.


	Ignore \| Logged

jcpjr

« Reply #47 on: December 16, 2011, 15:46 »

#link

Quote from: stockastic on December 16, 2011, 14:53

Quote from: jcpjr on December 16, 2011, 13:37

..
"Image subject is too specific or niche-oriented..."

I don't know what they want anymore.

DT is particularly creepy because they tie your search rank to how well you play their acceptance guessing game.

Agree. I would have accepted that they were LCV or improper lighting or something that wasn't so individually opinionated or controversial.


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: 1 [2]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: Really starting to get irritated with Dreamstime.

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results