so it's not only me that feels this way lately. 

The customer is always right The customer is always right The customer is always right The customer is always right The customer is always right The customer is always right The customer is always right The customer is sometimes drunk

The customer is always right.
The customer is always right.
The customer is always right....

Oh ! there he is !
I was looking on the left 
Thank you !

Youre right obvious! It sell shitloads:)

The customer is always right...

I uploaded some trash photos for fun a while back, just experimenting with new equipment. They were accepted, and they're in my top 10. I feel dirty (no pun intended!) but hey, if the customers like it and find a use, who am I to complain?

Look around . . . there is bad photography being used everywhere.  And it's not just on billboards and web sites, I've even seen pixelated pictures published in magazines.  To steal a line from a TV commercial I saw last night, "People wouldn't know a good photograph if it sat on their lap and called them mama!"  (I think the TV commercial said people wouldn't know HDTV.)   I don't know if art buyers are ignorant or if they just don't care.  But these art buyers hold influence people's opinions and they are using this influence to lower the general public's perception of what makes a good photograph.  John Q. Public thinks it must be good, it's been published.  By using sub-par pictures these art buyers are having a negative effect on all photography.

Having said that I am not sure that all the fault lies with the art buyers, after all they only buy what they see.  And I think a lot of people who have gotten into microstock don't know any more about what makes a good photograph than the art buyers do.  And it is hard to blame these new microstockers because all the pictures that influenced them were published by the art buyers.  Garbage in garbage out. 

That brings us to the microstock web sites and their reviewers.  I have no idea what kind of photographic qualifications are required for a microstock reviewer, but it can't be much.  I have had images turned down for reasons so ridiculous that it was apparent the reviewer no idea what he or she was seeing.  (Alpenglow on a mountain is not caused by the white balance being off, it is caused by the low angle of the sun.)  I think that the microstock web sites are very narrow minded in what they do and don't accept.  They think some subjects are "not commercial" and won't sell.  What I always wonder is how do the reviewers know that todays "non-commercial subject" is not going to be popular in 6 months or next year.  Last year everyone wanted to drive a big SUV now everyone wants to drive a hybrid, did they see $130 a barrel oil coming?

Now, I have images that I don't think are so good, but they sell every week.  So some customers think they are good.  1. Are these customers being negatively influenced by the art buyers?  2. Did a under qualified reviewer let these images slip by because he or she was tired of seeing work by new microstockers?  3. Should I take these images down because I don't think they are good enough?  The answers are #1 I don't know, #2 I don't know and #3 Not as long as I am making money with them. 

What's wrong with buyers? The way I see it there's no easy answer because there is plenty of blame to go around!

redhat

Also remember that stock photography isn't about the photography.  It's about the photograph's potential.

What difference does the overexposed snow make when the jumper is against a nice solid blue sky so they can be isolated easily and be jumping off the product or promotion du jour?

I never said that as a photograph it was a work of art, just that there are valid reasons why it would sell as stock. 

Look around . . . there is bad photography being used everywhere.  And it's not just on billboards and web sites, I've even seen pixelated pictures published in magazines.  To steal a line from a TV commercial I saw last night, "People wouldn't know a good photograph if it sat on their lap and called them mama!"  (I think the TV commercial said people wouldn't know HDTV.)   I don't know if art buyers are ignorant or if they just don't care. 

redhat

I teach photography to high school students. Many students are perfectly happy handing in images where the focal point is blurry, the background is the school parking lot (ughhhhh), or the exposure/contrast is blah. They know they are going to get a poor grade but the low quality is not a big deal to them. These are our future consumers . They know the qualities of a good photo, but they are content with substandard photographs. I feel that low res internet images make them all to comfortable in accepting poor shots.

This is missing the point the buyer is not buying an image for it's quality but for its content and message, an article in a free paper can often be more interesting than in a paper you paid for so it's the content that matters most.

When a buyer looks for an Image they are looking to find an image to tell a story, grap the viewers interest and they have to do this in a split second, so if we take the example of any sport or urban activities, which will catch the eye of a person interested in that activity, a slightly out of focus real action image, or some fake isolated over white, cheesy smile image?

As for the students not looking for pin sharp quality then there could be a simple answer, they see that the image gets across by content the message they want it to.
When one of my daughters sends a "blurry" text message in text speak like "r u k txt bk", it is not a quality message, but it gets across what they want it to "are you ok text back"

It could well be that the Quality Control on the stock sites are doing the buyer a miss service by rejecting some images for quality that could get across a message better than anything they already have.

So for the "Buyers of Tomorrow" will we still be uploading pin sharp isolated fakes, or real images with real backgrounds that have the message they want to get a cross to thier peers, or do we already have that on the macro sites?

B.T.W. most people cannot do the most stylish jump or wear the most stylish ski suits, that might be why they find this image a good option as it will appeal to the average Joe, rather than the elite! 

I have an image which has all sorts of lighting issues which I nearly didn't upload 2 years ago but decided to just let the reviewers decide.   It has sold over 500 times at IS, nearly 900 at SS and various amounts over the other sites.  It still sells well but now that I have got better there is no way I would have uploaded that image now and it definitely wouldn't get accepted.  It surprises me everytime it sells as I now have similar and much better images in my portfolio but you can never tell what the buyers are looking for.

If I was only going to upload the images I was really proud of, my portfolio would have 3 photos in it

Me too. Or more like my portfolio will have 3 submitted to it, and 2 rejected because it's more artistic than stock. =)