pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Rejection  (Read 5598 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 05, 2011, 11:48 »
0
I thought that this was a particularly cool image with good commercial potential...... And it was rejected  ???  For limited commercial value  ???

What do you think?


http://bobbyk.smugmug.com/Other/Public/MG6385/1178177616_rKYtT-XL.jpg


« Reply #1 on: February 05, 2011, 18:43 »
0
I like it, I can imagine uses

« Reply #2 on: February 05, 2011, 20:23 »
0
I like it too but I got mixed feelings regarding the use of this picture, try to upload it next week :)

« Reply #3 on: February 05, 2011, 20:29 »
0
Interesting because there is SOOOOO MUCHHHHH JUNK on SS and your image is very interesting and well composed for copy.  I get very frustrated at seeing some of the point and shoot "studio junk" some of their contributors get accepted.  Wait a week and reup in hopes of a different inspector.  By the way, the other thing that bothers me about LCV is that are all inspectors designers? NOPE!  So what makes them the expert?  At least at Istock they take pretty much anything as long as it meets their tough standards.  Why? They are smart enough to know that designer needs are endless.

Agent 99

Carl

  • Carl Stewart, CS Productions
« Reply #4 on: February 06, 2011, 06:27 »
0
I disagree with the SS inspector.  I can imagine any number of uses.  For example, I might take two copies, side-by-side, flip one vertically so that the graphic lines are flowing to the center, add a blur perhaps, and it would make an awesome background.  Maybe you should do that and submit it.   :)

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #5 on: February 06, 2011, 09:59 »
0
It's the kind of picture they usually - but not always - reject lately, but could sell well if accepted

« Reply #6 on: February 06, 2011, 20:44 »
0
like the image. It seems to me LCV means not mainstream. Surely they have enough of the mainstream. It is something different or niche photos they need. So often those that are CV really are stale or have a "sameness" about them. FT seems the worse to me for prejudging CV.

« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2011, 14:25 »
0
SS rejected me some abstract works and texture (I'm not happy for texture, I've sold a gold texture more that 36 times in few weeks  :-\) for "limited commercial value" so I think that it's normal reject this work. Mine was beauty too but, you know, how many abstract works there're on SS? Too many.So don't take it bad. It's a normal rejection.

« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2011, 14:25 »
0
...37 now  ;)

« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2011, 14:36 »
0
[Deleted -- This was too easily miscontrued - not meant to be critical - apologies to anyone offended.]
« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 11:26 by Fred »

« Reply #10 on: February 15, 2011, 08:51 »
0
It's the kind of picture they usually - but not always - reject lately, but could sell well if accepted

I switched it to B&W, resubmitted it, got accepted,  immediately got about 5 sales in 1st week.    Go figure.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
9851 Views
Last post November 09, 2008, 15:05
by julo
5 Replies
6354 Views
Last post September 29, 2010, 10:18
by sc
10 Replies
5715 Views
Last post May 30, 2011, 08:10
by mtkang
23 Replies
9642 Views
Last post March 25, 2014, 13:35
by Goofy
5 Replies
3766 Views
Last post March 24, 2015, 13:52
by Shelma1

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors