Author Topic: New Reviewers or new Quality requirements? (Read 11331 times)

Roadrunner · « **on:** June 06, 2008, 10:48 »

Did 123RF get new reviewers or are they trying to get tougher than iS and SS?

I just uploaded 15 images that had been accepted by SS and IS. Of the 15 images, only 5 were accepted. All ten rejected carried the same reason - "Lighting/Composition".

If 123 is going to start that level of quality level, I'm going to call it a day. I can't believe that SS and IS reviewers don't know good compposition and lighting when they see it. No wonder newbees find it difficult to get the understanding of what these sites want.

I had an acceptance rating of 85%, but it appears that I should figure on 35-40% in the future. Guess the rule of thirds isn't the rule here, When I shoot, I keep the grid turned on to line up my subject so it falls within the rule of thirds.

Might be time to consider just uploading to RM sites. Only thing is - sales come very sloooooow on those sites.

Anybody else feel as though they are walking through a mine field?

Roadrunner

snurder · « **Reply #1 on:** June 06, 2008, 11:28 »

Haven't noticed any difference. Upload 20 last nite, nothing special, and all 20 in accpted pile today. Sorry you had some bad luck here.

ACS · « **Reply #2 on:** June 06, 2008, 12:52 »

In the last two weeks I had 3 rejection for reason "poor lighting - composition". These photos were almost perfect for lighting and composition, and accepted by istock, shutterstock, dreamstime and even by fotolia.

Very unusual.

Reminding me strange "type of photograph" rejections in fotolia.

cshack · « **Reply #3 on:** June 06, 2008, 14:02 »

Quote from: Roadrunner on June 06, 2008, 10:48

Did 123RF get new reviewers or are they trying to get tougher than iS and SS?

I just uploaded 15 images that had been accepted by SS and IS. Of the 15 images, only 5 were accepted. All ten rejected carried the same reason - "Lighting/Composition". If 123 is going to start that level of quality level, I'm going to call it a day. I can't believe that SS and IS reviewers don't know good compposition and lighting when they see it. No wonder newbees find it difficult to get the understanding of what these sites want.

I had an acceptance rating of 85%, but it appears that I should figure on 35-40% in the future. Guess the rule of thirds isn't the rule here, When I shoot, I keep the grid turned on to line up my subject so it falls within the rule of thirds.

Might be time to consider just uploading to RM sites. Only thing is - sales come very sloooooow on those sites.

Anybody else feel as though they are walking through a mine field?

Roadrunner

It seems to be that way with all the sites from time to time. I don't get it either. What gets accepted today may get rejected tomorrow and visa versa? Go figure....? I think it's just a case of the reviewer having a bad day and taking it out on us. I don't know that to be a fact but sometimes you have to wonder what's up?

Twice in the past week I have uploaded a rejected file to (BLANK) without doing anything to it and both were accepted. I waited about a month before I did that by the way. I would love to hear them explain how that could happen!

I have learned to not even worry about rejects. I really don't care what my approval rating is anymore. With my portfolio being under 200 images I don't have a great deal to loose. So I may test them once in a while just to see what happens. So far, they're not very consistent. I have done this on 4 of the big 6 so far. Try it at your own risk.

Roadrunner · « **Reply #4 on:** June 06, 2008, 14:03 »

I wouldn't care if it were three images, but 10 out of 15 is a real slap in the face. I'm going to give them a rest for a couple of months; then may be test them with a small batch of 10. If I get the same result, then I figure it's time to just leave what I have on there stay until they stop generating sales.

Can't see cutting off my nose to spite my face.

Roadrunner

rjmiz · « **Reply #5 on:** June 06, 2008, 14:05 »

I got just the thing for you
http://microstockpix.com/supplies/page7/page7.html

Cranky MIZ

MicrostockExp · « **Reply #6 on:** June 06, 2008, 14:51 »

Nicely done

I like all the supplies

Lior · « **Reply #7 on:** June 06, 2008, 16:35 »

For the first time ever on 123, I had a batch of 10 out of 10 rejected for that same reason.

rjmiz · « **Reply #8 on:** June 06, 2008, 16:41 »

Quote from: Lior on June 06, 2008, 16:35

For the first time ever on 123, I had a batch of 10 out of 10 rejected for that same reason.

Ahhhhh man what you needed was this!
http://microstockpix.com/supplies/page5/page5.html

Cranky MIZ

mitzrah · « **Reply #9 on:** June 10, 2008, 20:23 »

Shoot an email to them, ask them to reconsider your images! stay

dullegg · « **Reply #10 on:** June 11, 2008, 08:16 »

Quote from: Roadrunner on June 06, 2008, 10:48

Did 123RF get new reviewers or are they trying to get tougher than iS and SS?
I can't believe that SS and IS reviewers don't know good compposition and lighting when they see it.
I had an acceptance rating of 85%, but it appears that I should figure on 35-40% in the future.
Roadrunner

maybe that's good news to newbies rather than bad.
from a QC standpoint, it's foolish to accept mouldy cheese from SS and IS
even if they were best sellers. still, no one is going to run for #1 by taking what #1 and #2 already have and have already been sold.

i suggest you give them new images that SS and IS don't have.
no one wants to be the dog picking up crumbs from SS and IS, and i think that's something to cheer for 123RF.

i am not a 123 submitter, but now that you've told me abut this,
i am going to join them. it's bad business strategy to pick up old stuff from top sellers, it's still old stuff.
new images have no sales history, but at least they've got a clean slate.
try giving them new images. i am sure that's the reason.

fotoKmyst · « **Reply #11 on:** June 11, 2008, 08:21 »

Maybe 123RF is tired of getting leftovers from SS and IS.
Good for them!

twieja · « **Reply #12 on:** June 11, 2008, 09:29 »

Quote from: Roadrunner on June 06, 2008, 10:48

Did 123RF get new reviewers or are they trying to get tougher than iS and SS?

They definetly decided to improve the quality by increasing the requirements. Which is good. What I do not understand though, are the unclear rejections for "composition" and "lighting" reasons; stuff which went through IS, SS and DT get rejected sometimes.. Well, I say, let's get over it and upload more. Maybe the reviewer just "didn't like it".

I think there should be a new category for such rejections - "sorry, I just simply don't like it". At least it would be fair. After all, they have full right to disagree on accepting my photos, same as I have the full right to upload some others, or to some other agency.

Well, maybe I'm too easy on them, but I do believe in their good will and I do think that sometimes they just know better.

PS. While mass rejections at 123rf never happened to me, it's quite common at Crestock. They usually take 1 or 2 out of a batch of 50. I figure I just don't fit their profile, so I'm going to stop

MicrostockExp · « **Reply #13 on:** June 11, 2008, 10:13 »

Did not see any change so far for me, may be on the coming batch

ChasingMoments · « **Reply #14 on:** June 11, 2008, 10:19 »

La la la... Is this "lighting/composition rejections anonymous" for 123rf?

I am in

Got hit by the composition bug. Whole batch people! Sent them a site mail

MicrostockExp · « **Reply #15 on:** June 11, 2008, 10:40 »

ha ha I spoke too fast they rejected all my last batch also for lighting/composition

Snufkin · « **Reply #16 on:** June 11, 2008, 11:15 »

Yeah, seems like they have new standards, I just had 9 out of 27 rejected for lighting/composition.

But that's fine with me, I just note it in my spreadsheet and move on.
Actually I was about to dump 123RF, but recently the sales improved so I decided to upload some more and observe the development. I don't mind tougher standards as long as sales improve.

MicrostockExp · « **Reply #17 on:** June 11, 2008, 11:22 »

the prb is everybody got the same reason for rejection....

Fred · « **Reply #18 on:** June 11, 2008, 11:30 »

Yeah I just had a bunch rejected for that reason also. What burns me is when they reject something for needing a model release (SS didn't need one) and then when you resubmit with a release they reject for Lighting/Composition. Probably need to send a site mail on this one!

fred

cshack · « **Reply #19 on:** June 11, 2008, 12:45 »

123RF was the second site I dumped for good. 123 was very slow for sales and their reviewers are inconsistent. They are changing standards in hopes of raising the bar. I don't see it helping their sales. Raising the standards without increased marketing won't change anything in the sales arena. If a image was accepted at SS and IS only to be rejected at 123 then 123 is missing the boat. They will either sink or stay very low on the list when it comes to performance IMO. Total waste of time and effort.

Just one more note about 123RF....The site needs a face lift. It just looks tired and lifeless to me.

Roadrunner · « **Reply #20 on:** June 11, 2008, 14:43 »

Only reason I started this thread is because I wanted to know if any other photogs were getting the exact same reason for rejections. Getting rejected is fine with me. All I ask is that the real reason for rejection be stated![/] If the reviewers just palin don't like my work that is fine too. I';; just move on. Not knowing the real reason prevents a photog from trying to meet their standards.

This was not meant to be whining and complaining, just an attempt to find out If anyone else had the batch problem.

Looks like many of you do. I am not going to deleted my existing images, because my images are selling well there. I just don't want to waste time uploading and pushing images through when all I get is a batch rejection with no accurate information. I notice FOT is doing the same thing now. When an image is rejected at FOT, I get no feedback at all. They also are now doing the batch thing.

I'm beginning to think I should just stick to service type photog where I deal with a client up close.

Any way - good luck to all you guys and dolls!

Roadrunner

madelaide · « **Reply #21 on:** June 11, 2008, 16:58 »

Roadrunner,

Try to email them for a second opinion. Alex is sometimes here, but not often, so you can give it a try to email them. One thing I have problems in 123RF is of "too many similar" images, even if one if a vertical and another a horizontal image.

I haven't uploaded there recently, so I don't have any feedback to add.

Regards,
Adelaide

ChasingMoments · « **Reply #22 on:** June 11, 2008, 21:04 »

Just fyi. Got a nice little note from Alex via email (after I sent a site mail and explained my take on composition in the images in question). When I logged in to 123rf all images in the batch in question went form "rejected" to "accepted" .

DanP68 · « **Reply #23 on:** June 11, 2008, 23:37 »

I had 1 or 2 rejected in my last batch, and it was due to composition concerns. Interesting, because I thought it was pretty well composed. 123RF was the only site not to accept the image in question.

Not a big deal. I didn't have high hopes for the image being a big seller or anything.

At this point I'll say that "I am on alert" for composition rejections as so many of you are getting hit. But honestly so far I have not run into a major problem. I still have a very high acceptance rate on recent uploads.

123RF sales are rising nicely for me. May was a BME, and June is looking good so far. I think most of us would understand more stringent acceptance criteria. However it is important that their new reviewer(s) actually understands composition, and doesn't just make decisions based on 1 or 2 arbitrary rules somebody taught them.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors