pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

Who has the most incompetent Inspectors / Inspection process?

istockphoto.com
44 (20.5%)
shutterstock.com
19 (8.8%)
dreamstime.com
68 (31.6%)
veer.com
7 (3.3%)
fotolia.com
41 (19.1%)
deposithotos.com
1 (0.5%)
canstockphoto.com
2 (0.9%)
bigstockphoto.com
2 (0.9%)
123rf.com
7 (3.3%)
panthermedia.net
8 (3.7%)
Photodune.com
16 (7.4%)

Total Members Voted: 193

Author Topic: Poll: Who has the most incompetent Inspectors / Inspection process?  (Read 29153 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Wim

« Reply #25 on: March 23, 2012, 03:01 »
0
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
« Last Edit: March 28, 2012, 08:25 by Wim »


Wim

« Reply #26 on: March 23, 2012, 03:15 »
0
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!

lagereek

« Reply #27 on: March 23, 2012, 07:57 »
+1
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.

wut

« Reply #28 on: March 23, 2012, 09:24 »
0

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.

velocicarpo

« Reply #29 on: March 23, 2012, 09:32 »
0
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. 

Roadrunner

  • Roadrunner
« Reply #30 on: March 23, 2012, 11:21 »
0
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!

 

« Reply #31 on: March 23, 2012, 11:39 »
0
One way to compare, is which agency consistently rejects a photo that the other top ten agencies accept.   In my case, it's Dreamstime.

« Reply #32 on: March 23, 2012, 12:10 »
0
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.

« Reply #33 on: March 23, 2012, 13:47 »
0
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.   

wut

« Reply #34 on: March 23, 2012, 13:52 »
0
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

« Reply #35 on: March 23, 2012, 14:42 »
0
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 wouldnt otherwise get.  Which image selection makes most commercial sense? 

velocicarpo

« Reply #36 on: March 23, 2012, 15:01 »
0
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.

wut

« Reply #37 on: March 23, 2012, 15:36 »
0
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 wouldnt 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.

lagereek

« Reply #38 on: March 23, 2012, 15:41 »
0
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?

velocicarpo

« Reply #39 on: March 23, 2012, 15:47 »
0
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?

jbarber873

« Reply #40 on: March 23, 2012, 16:00 »
0
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.

« Reply #41 on: March 23, 2012, 16:09 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2012, 16:15 by stockastic »


velocicarpo

« Reply #42 on: March 23, 2012, 16:18 »
0
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 :-)

rinderart

« Reply #43 on: March 23, 2012, 16:21 »
0
I sold my First stock shot to Arizona Highways in 1968. I got $500.00 Thats about $3,000 in todays money.

velocicarpo

« Reply #44 on: March 23, 2012, 16:30 »
0
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!

« Reply #45 on: March 23, 2012, 16:42 »
0
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.

lagereek

« Reply #46 on: March 23, 2012, 17:05 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2012, 17:11 by lagereek »

« Reply #47 on: March 23, 2012, 17:34 »
0
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).
« Last Edit: March 23, 2012, 17:42 by Fran »

« Reply #48 on: March 23, 2012, 17:38 »
0
And the winner is... Crestock.

+1 [they seem to lack grasp of the laws of optics]

« Reply #49 on: March 23, 2012, 18:09 »
0
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
5307 Views
Last post October 22, 2007, 14:07
by Dr Bouz
9 Replies
6143 Views
Last post April 14, 2008, 01:54
by Graffoto
18 Replies
8763 Views
Last post February 26, 2011, 23:55
by sobm
2 Replies
4076 Views
Last post April 19, 2011, 02:02
by oxman
71 Replies
15561 Views
Last post October 10, 2011, 07:54
by RacePhoto

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors