Author Topic: It is funny but these are rejects..want an opinion (Read 3077 times)

lephotography · « **on:** February 07, 2009, 16:46 »

The image was rejected for the following reason(s):

* Composition
* Over / Underexposed

The image was rejected for the following reason(s):

* Composition

This was by Crestock
Now granted..they have been accepted by other agencies...and lately Crestock is rejecting everything I submit and I have a really good AR everywhere and did have at Crestock until lately when they started rejecting EVERYTHING. Everything is straight.. used the ruler tool so it is not crooked and the lighting is not off at all. For night shots, they look great and have no grain or noise.

anton9 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 07, 2009, 16:51 »

that is strange I actually think they are fantastic images and you should be very proud of them. Have they been accepted anywhere else?

gostwyck · « **Reply #2 on:** February 07, 2009, 17:06 »

Very nice images, especially the top one. I've actually never bothered to submit anything to Crestock to don't know what they're after.

To be honest these strike me as being as niche subject matter and therefore more suitable for RM stock at Alamy. I don't think they're the type of image that are going to sell in the volumes to justify offering them on microstock. Great work though!

corepics · « **Reply #3 on:** February 07, 2009, 17:14 »

Even without looking any further than the two images and the word rejects in the title, it's bound to be about Crestock.

They have a funny, if not ambiguous way of looking at pictures. They claim they've done extensive research into customer demands and trends, as well have an expert team of reviewers (both photographers as well as high volume customers) on board, however, very little of their self proclaimed expertise is showing through in their review and rejection (sure wish it would've been acceptance-) policy.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. The images look fine to me, too. It's easy to say, but you have two choices. Either live with it, or deal with it; In case you chose the latter, do let us know how you succeed? I've tried, and am still trying to get a professional answer from them, but most of my efforts seem to be in vain.

lephotography · « **Reply #4 on:** February 07, 2009, 17:15 »

Yes the other agencies accepted them. They have rejected everything I have uploaded the last 4 times I uploaded.. here are just a couple from some of the batches...dont want to bore anyone with my beyatching LOL.

The image was rejected for the following reason(s):

* This image does not meet the creative standards of Crestock.

The image was rejected for the following reason(s):

* Composition

lephotography · « **Reply #5 on:** February 07, 2009, 17:17 »

btw these were also accepted at the other agencies..

madelaide · « **Reply #6 on:** February 07, 2009, 17:33 »

About the first two.

The vertical one is a bit tilted. Also, if doing a symmetrical image, I think it should be totally symmetrical.

In the horizontal one, I think exposure is very good on the building, and I believe the complaint is about the light areas from the water, which are indeed very bright. Also the shadow in the right, while you have full reflection at left.

But then... this is Crestock. Everybody complains of their rejections.

Regards,
Adelaide

Lcjtripod · « **Reply #7 on:** February 07, 2009, 18:32 »

I think they are crazy. Reject reasons are ridiculous. Give them to a different site and forget about them.

-Larry

lephotography · « **Reply #8 on:** February 08, 2009, 01:56 »

Thank you all for your kindness. So maybe I am not crazy and Crestock is rejection crazy? I just got done reading another thread full of Crestock rejections about them over-rejecting everyone.

Why is it taking some people months to get their things reviewed? It took mine 1-2 days to go through. Not long to get rejected.. Sometimes it has taken only an hour or so to get rejected. I am getting very disappointed in Crestock. From having a very good AR to never getting anything accepted. I am wondering if they are wanting me to quit uploading and give up. I guess if I deleted my account then there would be no loss.. I never make anything there.

Perry · « **Reply #9 on:** February 08, 2009, 02:22 »

Quote from: lephotography on February 07, 2009, 16:46

The image was rejected for the following reason(s):

* Composition
* Over / Underexposed

The image was rejected for the following reason(s):

* Composition

Both have blown-out hilights (you should shoot night images at dusk, not when it's completely dark) and the second one has a tilted horizon.

cclapper · « **Reply #10 on:** February 08, 2009, 11:11 »

I think these images are fixable and are good images, especially the horizontal one. And I would fix the tilt on the vertical one, too. And maybe you are "supposed" to photograph at dusk, but personally I think a little more freely than that...I like the looks of the lighting on these.

I don't upload to Crestock, so don't know about overrejections but that happens on just about every site...they seem to all go through stages. The beauty of uploading to more than one site is that you can blow off the inane rejections and upload to other places that will actually sell your image that didn't meet the creative standards of Crestock!

null · « **Reply #11 on:** February 08, 2009, 11:31 »

Quote from: Perry on February 08, 2009, 02:22

Both have blown-out hilights (you should shoot night images at dusk, not when it's completely dark) and the second one has a tilted horizon.

Correct, that was my very first impression too without reading your comment. A horizon should be perfect 0 degrees, or far off. If you lose pixels at the border, they can easily be cloned in, certainly in this image. As to blown-outs, the OP should check the raws and do a -3 development. If he has no raws, it's quite easy to put in a gradient since the form of the lamps is quite simple.

icefront · « **Reply #12 on:** February 08, 2009, 16:09 »

Quote from: Perry on February 08, 2009, 02:22

Both have blown-out hilights (you should shoot night images at dusk, not when it's completely dark) and the second one has a tilted horizon.

1. Yes, both have blown-outs and underexposes. This is not a problem. Also the images shot at dusk are different images, the ones shoot at night are another different images. What I mean, there is no rule about when to shoot a night image. There is no such rule that blown-out highlights are not good. Pls. take a correctly exposed shoot with sun included or shot a keyhole.

2. Probably the poor reviewer was thinking the same, but come on guys... Don't forget where we are. This is microstock, the revenue offered is too low for such a high needs. These shoots fit perfectly in any micro/macro library without doubt. Don't forget, this is not a photography school, exam, exhibition material, etc., etc. so I don't understand - and completely disagree with - rejections such composition, small amount of noise, subjectively judged commercial value, overabundant category, etc. I don't mean that every garbage is acceptable. I'm talking about acceptable and usable stock photos.

null · « **Reply #13 on:** February 08, 2009, 16:45 »

Quote from: icefront on February 08, 2009, 16:09

Probably the poor reviewer was thinking the same, but come on guys... Don't forget where we are. This is microstock, the revenue offered is too low for such a high needs. These shoots fit perfectly in any micro/macro library without doubt.

Yes they are great stock. The flaws are minor and very easy to correct and resubmit. But then, this was on Crestock, and I won't comment on that site any more.

Lcjtripod · « **Reply #14 on:** February 08, 2009, 17:21 »

ICEFRONT to your comment may I add: Amen!

-Larry

thaimacky · « **Reply #15 on:** February 21, 2009, 13:32 »

i uploaded my first 10 pictures on crestock in last december. all the shots never got rejected by any other stock site.

result: 2 approved - 8 rejected - no reasons for rejections added.

so, i sent crestock an email to ask about the rejection reasons in order to get an idea about what they are expecting. now, about 2 month later i still got no reply. and i decided to forget about this site.

crestock really sucks...

Magnum · « **Reply #16 on:** February 21, 2009, 13:58 »

Quote from: icefront on February 08, 2009, 16:09

Quote from: Perry on February 08, 2009, 02:22
Both have blown-out hilights (you should shoot night images at dusk, not when it's completely dark) and the second one has a tilted horizon.

1. Yes, both have blown-outs and underexposes. This is not a problem. Also the images shot at dusk are different images, the ones shoot at night are another different images. What I mean, there is no rule about when to shoot a night image. There is no such rule that blown-out highlights are not good. Pls. take a correctly exposed shoot with sun included or shot a keyhole.

2. Probably the poor reviewer was thinking the same, but come on guys... Don't forget where we are. This is microstock, the revenue offered is too low for such a high needs. These shoots fit perfectly in any micro/macro library without doubt. Don't forget, this is not a photography school, exam, exhibition material, etc., etc. so I don't understand - and completely disagree with - rejections such composition, small amount of noise, subjectively judged commercial value, overabundant category, etc. I don't mean that every garbage is acceptable. I'm talking about acceptable and usable stock photos.

The best thing I´ve read in a long time...