MicrostockGroup

As above. Say you uploaded 1000 images to SS. What percentage of them has at least one sale ?

seems to be 100% not included yesterday uploaded images

Thanks

88.4% =tom

going down. theres a rogue reviewer there with the No Commercial value thing. Big thread going on now.anything goes

In that case you should try Istock. They want it straight from the cam, while SS likes the pop-up. I don't know what you mean by filters but technically spoken, noise reduction and sharpening are filters but adding vibrance and contrast are not. They are just linear transformations.

No pixels are changed by soft layers and changing the relative intensity value of pixels. That means it can be undone easily at the buyers side when the photographer knows his tools, that is, never go beyond the clipping level since you can't make eggs again out of an omelet.

I use to have 90% acceptance at SS but my last batch had only 50% with the lame excuse the white balance was off. Those were isolated people shots I know will sell ("commercial") but no pop-up at all since I don't like to deform skin tones. It was an experiment but I'll resubmit them with added vibrance, and that's a shame.

I think what Rinder meant was that the rogue reviewer rejects shots that we know will sell, just based on his own biased taste.

I don't know what you mean by plastic: people in fake poses and with fake emotions or images that overly noise-reduced. I never wanted to play the silly noise game of SS since many people destroy the crispness of their image. I just noise-reduce on the blue sky and some non-essential parts like folds in clothes, and then I reduce from 10 to 6MP. I agree that noise-reduction is very destructive in general.

In general, I think reviewers should not judge commercial value beyond the level of snapshots but just technical aspects. Why? Because reviewers are photographers too and they don't know, just like we, what a customer really wants.

Therefore it would be great to have image buyers on this forum too, not only photographers that are stumbling in the dark. Right now, we work to please the reviewer but we should please the customer. That's a basic weakness of most stock sites.

Interesting read, FD. For me, 50% of my sales are also from images with 10 sales or less. Thought it was just me LOL. Also agree with the comments on not rejecting for a reviewers perception of what is commercial. Per some sites' requiements, I am qualified to be a reviewer, but based on my perception of what will sell, I sure as hell am not.

I have two almost identical background shots. One is consitently in my top 10 and one sells occasionally. I have a series of houses. Cookie cutter. One outsells the rest put together. Why? No idea. So how can I decided what has commercial value.

Regardless of your opinion of the quality at SS, there is a rogue reviewer there with an agenda that is creating a problem.

I wrote my previous post before reading the SS thread about this. Yes, there seems to be a problem, but it could be a new site policy and not one single reviewer.
I'm glad you have the same idea about a reviewer's role, that is, do the technical review and sift out apparent uninspired snap shots. The customer should decide what's commercial. A photog can't do that. As you, I have very odd experiences in what sells and what not. You"ll never know, it's a Darwinian thing.

I picked this from the SS thread by a designer-photog and he exactly says the same:

I do not my % but S.S. works well for me, by the way there are well said toughts in this tread.