MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Poor lighting/ Composition, Poorlighting/ composition....  (Read 12668 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 09, 2010, 01:18 »
0
Ok now I dont understand this, but I'm wondering if anyone else has found this to be the case.  I submitted an initial 10 images and 8 got accepted, which is fine.  I submitted another 28 and only 4 got accepted, with the others being rejected for "poor lighting/ composition".  Now these images that I uploaded were all accepted by other agencies, so I'm wondering if 123rf is just plain picky or what?   If that's the case, then I just wont bother with them.


« Reply #1 on: January 09, 2010, 01:26 »
0
I had also some strange rejections at 123rf recently ...

« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2010, 01:34 »
0
me to

ap

« Reply #3 on: January 09, 2010, 01:35 »
0

« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2010, 10:52 »
0
for this new decade, i work this way accordingly down the line:

1) the more you approve my work, the more you get.
2) some rejections some  sales   = you  get some images .
3) rejections but no sales.  =  open trash can, you belong to 2009
and you stay there, you are no coming into the new decade with me.

i think it will work for me, as this way i am slowly ending up with only 2 or 3 Big 6, therefore giving me more time to concentrate on  Alamy

« Last Edit: January 09, 2010, 11:02 by PERSEUS »

m@m

« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2010, 11:16 »
0
I had also some strange rejections at 123rf recently ...

Same here!... "poor lighting / composition" seems to be the new over used rejection button of 123rf reviewers lately  ???

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #6 on: January 09, 2010, 15:00 »
0
Yup...same here..I hardly upload there any more...very few sales, but I do find it some what strange when they accept some of the same photos in a series and when you upload some in a separete upload....so the don't do the ""to many similar images" on you....they turn them down for poor lighting or composition. I sometimes wonder if some of the reviewers need to have their monitors calibrated.

« Reply #7 on: January 09, 2010, 16:14 »
0
Me too.

Sounds like they fired half of reviewers or outsourced it all together.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #8 on: January 09, 2010, 17:12 »
0
You know I can understand rejects with some of the big 6 but when pictures are accepted at all of the big 6 and rejected at some of these smaller agencies, I really wonder if they just got some brand new reject keys and they gotta test them out.....lol

« Reply #9 on: January 09, 2010, 18:04 »
0
I had also some strange rejections at 123rf recently ...
Me too, and I'm almost 5 years with them. I guess they hired a stray reviewer.

« Reply #10 on: January 10, 2010, 02:15 »
0
i've had exactly that poblem too -- whole batches rejected for 'lighting' - when i asked if they were training new reviewers i got an abrupt reply telling me their reviewers were highly trained and that many of them had large portfolios themselves!  then next 2 batcdhes of over 50 images were rejected the same way. 

that's it for me - 123 has been a poor perforer, even when they took a reasonasble approach to reviews; it's no longer worth my time

your mileage may vary

s

« Reply #11 on: January 10, 2010, 03:53 »
0
The same here... Poor lighting/composition.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #12 on: January 10, 2010, 11:53 »
0
I haven't checked recently but last time I did I think my total earning with them was $8.00 +. I really don't mess with them anymore because they are a waste of my time.

Dan

« Reply #13 on: January 10, 2010, 13:07 »
0
  My  last  3  were  the  same  PL/Comp.  2  of  the  3   were  accepted  by  another  big  6  above  them.

« Reply #14 on: January 10, 2010, 13:40 »
0
I just joined 123RF this fall and uploaded couple hundred images to them.

Huge rejection rate, in the neighborhood of 70%, and the funniest part is that they accept the images that are iffy, not good sellers anywhere else.

And yeah, all the rejections are for poor composition/lighting.

I might hang onto the rest of my portfolio until they figure out what's up.




« Reply #15 on: January 10, 2010, 14:53 »
0
let me look into the crystal ball of the past to see:

hmm,  atilla did some christmas moonlighting for 123 too.
oh, gee,... is that the editor from the demised Zymmetrical sitting in the reviewers chair for 123 ?

 ;D ;D ;D

« Reply #16 on: January 10, 2010, 16:53 »
0
oh, gee,... is that the editor from the demised Zymmetrical sitting in the reviewers chair for 123 ?
There were no Attilas with Zymm. All rejections I had (not that many) were all justified by long and man-made explanations why. 123RF just rejected many of my new 5DII images that even iStock accepts without remarks. That's bad since 123RF as a low performer is not really in a position to throw away salable material like iStock now and then does. That wasn't their policy before. I won't object since the time it takes to email and give them examples, I can better use to edit my large backlog of images and upload to the real seller sites. I might even stop uploading to 123RF, until they sorted things out.

« Reply #17 on: January 10, 2010, 23:13 »
0
Beware to 123rf sometime they reject dark color images (not dark because lack of lights) such as brown, black etc. They reject my black forest cake because of poor lighting even though if I lift the exposure by small amount will over exposed the white part of the image.

« Reply #18 on: January 11, 2010, 00:26 »
0
ah so it appears to be a common theme!  I guess I wont bother wasting anymore time submitting there for now then.

« Reply #19 on: January 11, 2010, 00:33 »
0
Hi All,

If you feel strongly that your image is a good seller please email us. We're always happy to hear you out and perform a re-evaluation.


Xalanx

« Reply #20 on: January 11, 2010, 01:17 »
0
Wow, a thread about 123RF being picky!!

« Reply #21 on: January 11, 2010, 04:26 »
0
One unavoidable truth about image inspecting is that there are only 2 options. Approval or rejection. Its one or the other, with very few grey areas in-between. Unfortunately, one of the biggest factors in deciding whether to approve or reject any certain image is the strength of your previous uploads. Ie. if you have a proven track record of approvals and/or sales, the inspector will most likely be (much) more inclined to approve those borderline images when the decision to do so is more objective. So, if you have a 80-90% approval rating and an ok sales record then you will experience much fewer rejections, even if the composition or lighting of certain individual (or even series of) images is questionable.

Having been an editor for a few years I know that there is a lot of talent out there. One mistake is to start off by uploading too much and degrading the overall quality of your port, too early in the game. On top of having to improve your skills and tricks, you've got a massive approval deficit to improve as well. Remember, you start at the top with a 100% approval rating.

My point is that there is a 'tipping point' where if you can maintain quality over quantity for an extended period of time you have a much higher chance of getting the better of those borderline inspections.

Not preaching, just saying. I do consult a few successful contributors about these things, so if you've got any questions, drop a PM. Peace ;)

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #22 on: January 11, 2010, 10:18 »
0
One unavoidable truth about image inspecting is that there are only 2 options. Approval or rejection. Its one or the other, with very few grey areas in-between. Unfortunately, one of the biggest factors in deciding whether to approve or reject any certain image is the strength of your previous uploads. Ie. if you have a proven track record of approvals and/or sales, the inspector will most likely be (much) more inclined to approve those borderline images when the decision to do so is more objective. So, if you have a 80-90% approval rating and an ok sales record then you will experience much fewer rejections, even if the composition or lighting of certain individual (or even series of) images is questionable.

Having been an editor for a few years I know that there is a lot of talent out there. One mistake is to start off by uploading too much and degrading the overall quality of your port, too early in the game. On top of having to improve your skills and tricks, you've got a massive approval deficit to improve as well. Remember, you start at the top with a 100% approval rating.

My point is that there is a 'tipping point' where if you can maintain quality over quantity for an extended period of time you have a much higher chance of getting the better of those borderline inspections.

Not preaching, just saying. I do consult a few successful contributors about these things, so if you've got any questions, drop a PM. Peace ;)
I agree with what you said to a degree, but when the same images they reject are being accepted by the more profitable and bigger agencies then their reveiwers need a lesson it what is and what isn't the correct exposure and composition

« Reply #23 on: January 12, 2010, 05:18 »
0
True, there will always be different 'standards' across the agencies. I think in the future we will see increasingly objective standards with creative content, styling, overall production values being some of the main factors determining an approval or rejection.

Its always helpful to produce a surplus of images and then split them up into weekly (or fortnightly) batches. With a surplus, you can be more selective at least on the first batches. Also, you can then mix them up from different shoots and avoid similarity rejections.

« Reply #24 on: January 12, 2010, 22:01 »
0
Here we go again...poor lighting/composition....

« Reply #25 on: January 12, 2010, 23:09 »
0
Me too...
whats going on there..

« Reply #26 on: January 12, 2010, 23:22 »
0
Hi All,

If you feel strongly that your image is a good seller please email us. We're always happy to hear you out and perform a re-evaluation.



ROFL

sorry 123 but that was not my experience -- when i reported this new avalanche of reviewing laziness, i was told they'd check, but the next 2 large batches were rejectede with the SAME silly reasoning the next day

as far as pointing you to our best sellers that you've rejected  --  i was told you had crack reviewers who knew their jobs, so i wouldnt want to second guess them

 s

« Reply #27 on: January 12, 2010, 23:26 »
0
One unavoidable truth about image inspecting is that there are only 2 options. Approval or rejection. Its one or the other, with very few grey areas in-between. Unfortunately, one of the biggest factors in deciding whether to approve or reject any certain image is the strength of your previous uploads. Ie. if you have a proven track record of approvals and/or sales, the inspector will most likely be (much) more inclined to approve those borderline images when the decision to do so is more objective. So, if you have a 80-90% approval rating and an ok sales record then you will experience much fewer rejections, even if the composition or lighting of certain individual (or even series of) images is questionable.

 

if that's true it's sad that reviewers rely on reputation rather than actual quality of submitted images


but in my case, i was getting 70-80% or more acceptance at 123 until this mass reject mode began,  so by your theory i shouldnt have been affected.  also it's highly reviewer dependent it seems -- an occ'l batch still gets reviewed by someone who actually judeged the images submitted


WarrenPrice

« Reply #28 on: January 12, 2010, 23:27 »
0
I'm thinking it is a Moot Point.  None of my accepted images are selling anyway.  What does a few more matter?   :P

« Reply #29 on: January 13, 2010, 03:28 »
0
One unavoidable truth about image inspecting is that there are only 2 options. Approval or rejection. Its one or the other, with very few grey areas in-between. Unfortunately, one of the biggest factors in deciding whether to approve or reject any certain image is the strength of your previous uploads. Ie. if you have a proven track record of approvals and/or sales, the inspector will most likely be (much) more inclined to approve those borderline images when the decision to do so is more objective. So, if you have a 80-90% approval rating and an ok sales record then you will experience much fewer rejections, even if the composition or lighting of certain individual (or even series of) images is questionable.

 

if that's true it's sad that reviewers rely on reputation rather than actual quality of submitted images


but in my case, i was getting 70-80% or more acceptance at 123 until this mass reject mode began,  so by your theory i shouldnt have been affected.  also it's highly reviewer dependent it seems -- an occ'l batch still gets reviewed by someone who actually judeged the images submitted



Yes, it probably is new inspectors or even more likely, new standards put forward by the agency and poorly executed by the inspectors. I hope they aren't one of your main earners..

« Reply #30 on: January 13, 2010, 18:33 »
0
no, they've always ben marginal, so this was enuf to decid to just leave my portfolio there as it is

s

« Reply #31 on: January 13, 2010, 22:18 »
0
Quote
If you feel strongly that your image is a good seller please email us. We're always happy to hear you out and perform a re-evaluation.

But why bother with this?  I already was picky with what I uploaded ie:  good sellers and consistently accepted by other agencies yet I got  4 out of 28 accepted after getting my initial 8 out of 10 accepted. 

CCK

« Reply #32 on: January 14, 2010, 11:10 »
0
With a proven record of submitting good images, 93% acceptance rate and I've never had a batch with less than 80% accepted since I started in 2007, suddenly an entire batch rejected/ The same batch accepted by the other major agencies I had send it to. The reviewers at SS, DT BS and others can't be that stupid.

If the reviewer had said something like this is not what we want or what we need I would have understood, but every image rejected for poor lighting/composition. I know what poor lighting is, and I know what poor composition is. I don't submit photos with poor lighting. Composition is perhaps more subjective, but I firmly believe composition is not a problem with any of my submissions.

I'm sorry 123R, but I think you will have to look at the competency of your reviewers as a matter of urgency. No good photographer will waste his time like this, and those who will close their accounts will be those you actually need.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #33 on: January 14, 2010, 11:14 »
0
With a proven record of submitting good images, 93% acceptance rate and I've never had a batch with less than 80% accepted since I started in 2007, suddenly an entire batch rejected/ The same batch accepted by the other major agencies I had send it to. The reviewers at SS, DT BS and others can't be that stupid.

If the reviewer had said something like this is not what we want or what we need I would have understood, but every image rejected for poor lighting/composition. I know what poor lighting is, and I know what poor composition is. I don't submit photos with poor lighting. Composition is perhaps more subjective, but I firmly believe composition is not a problem with any of my submissions.

I'm sorry 123R, but I think you will have to look at the competency of your reviewers as a matter of urgency. No good photographer will waste his time like this, and those who will close their accounts will be those you actually need.
AMEN to that!!!!!!!

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #34 on: January 14, 2010, 20:50 »
0
Very same experience here.  I wont say images that have been accepted elsewhere.  That's a meaningless comment given different review criteria.  However this last batch of 20 all have sales elsewhere of 100 or more.  That means buyers like them and that's the bottom line.

Now when I tried to log on today, all links to 123RF are directed to Inmagine and my Login/password no longer work.  What's going on here?

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #35 on: January 14, 2010, 20:59 »
0
Very same experience here.  I wont say images that have been accepted elsewhere.  That's a meaningless comment given different review criteria.  However this last batch of 20 all have sales elsewhere of 100 or more.  That means buyers like them and that's the bottom line.

Now when I tried to log on today, all links to 123RF are directed to Inmagine and my Login/password no longer work.  What's going on here?
That's strange...I just went to see if I could get on and it went right there. No problem

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #36 on: January 14, 2010, 21:03 »
0
I see there's another thread about this 123RF/Inmagine problem.  Apparently it's been going on, on and off, since last week.  Something definitely screwy.  I sent an e-mail to submittal support earlier today.  I'll wait and see what they say before deciding whether or not to bail on them.  Too many other companies out there to waste time with this foolishness.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #37 on: January 14, 2010, 21:12 »
0
I haven't messed with uploading there for some time,,,,,got a total of 10 bucks or something on there so if they go away I won't be out to much

« Reply #38 on: January 15, 2010, 01:58 »
0
Very same experience here.  I wont say images that have been accepted elsewhere.  That's a meaningless comment given different review criteria.  However this last batch of 20 all have sales elsewhere of 100 or more.  That means buyers like them and that's the bottom line.




the fact that others accept them IS important when there are mass rejects of those same images for alleged techncal reasons

s

« Reply #39 on: January 15, 2010, 16:50 »
0
Same here, the whole batch rejected for "poor lighting / composition"

« Reply #40 on: January 15, 2010, 17:51 »
0
could this be some glitch?

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #41 on: January 15, 2010, 21:08 »
0
Well a quick response from Admin. After requesting a second look, all images accepted except for four.  I can live with that.  Those four are selling well elsewhere, but there is a common "look" to them that simply may not be on 123RF's want list.  I'll try to weed out anything along this line in the future.  Now we just need to see how future reviews go.

CCK


RacePhoto

« Reply #43 on: January 17, 2010, 02:31 »
0
I have been reminding myself, not to post to any of the agency forums, not to complain, just sit back and shut up, but this one was just too funny!

To quote a response from 123 staff, a message from the above link, We just switched over to a new review system. Please be patient while we get used to this system. Yup, we understand that it's behaving a little weird, but we're still refining the review tool. If you didn't look at the top, it says this. Posted: Mon May 14, 2007

Seems this refining is still an ongoing project.  ::)

Here's the 2009 version of the same messages.

http://forum.123rf.com/viewtopic.php?t=1293

« Last Edit: January 17, 2010, 02:36 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #44 on: January 17, 2010, 03:30 »
0
 my overall acceptance rate there is 85-90% last two months it's dropped to around 55-60%.

Did I read something about they were going to increase their quality required for acceptance or was that another agency.

My earnings at 123 are around 5% of my monthly total.

Hence why they sit around 6 or 7 on the list to the right.

m@m

« Reply #45 on: January 21, 2010, 13:44 »
0
Here we go again...poor lighting/composition....

I guess they still don't have their s..t together!...the same old poor lighting/composition crap, 4 of 5 rejection on a batch accepted elsewhere...mind you, all rejected shots under the Florida sun (yeah, I'm sure there's a lack of lighting there!!!) ::)

« Reply #46 on: January 23, 2010, 11:26 »
0
Some update. After they rejected 4/10 in my second last batch I emailed them to reconsider. They just reversed one and said the requirements were indeed stricter. My last batch was already under way then and they again rejected 4/10, more than iStock did. This image is on iStock and sold already a few times on SS:


My conclusion is that (1) they indeed got much stricter, even stricter than iStock and (2) they are emulating FT as to content: all lightbox-studio shots of people got through, none of the others.

« Reply #47 on: February 05, 2010, 20:51 »
0
again, the same batch...the same reason

« Reply #48 on: February 22, 2010, 15:00 »
0
And again.... whole batch... Also, the same batch is 100% accepted at IS. I emailed support... I'm waiting now.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #49 on: February 22, 2010, 15:10 »
0
And again.... whole batch... Also, the same batch is 100% accepted at IS. I emailed support... I'm waiting now.

I wouldn't want you to feel lonely so I'm letting you know you're not the only one.. ;D
No really I just had 45 out of 72 rejected and they all said.."Poor lighting/ Composition"
Lights on a boat pier at night...good god there isn't any lighting other than the dock lighting. They even rejected one of my vectors/illustrations for poor lighting. I'm like you the ones they rejected were accepted everywhere else. They just aren't worth the aggravation.

« Reply #50 on: February 22, 2010, 17:37 »
0
Thank you donding :) Actually, I am pretty worried because 123RF is not bad seller for me.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
12051 Views
Last post September 12, 2006, 17:37
by Greg Boiarsky
11 Replies
5533 Views
Last post February 07, 2008, 18:24
by ChasingMoments
12 Replies
5331 Views
Last post February 27, 2008, 21:29
by Waldo4
8 Replies
4534 Views
Last post November 23, 2008, 23:01
by melastmohican
14 Replies
6784 Views
Last post April 12, 2011, 09:10
by m@m

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results