Author Topic: Poor lighting/composition (Read 9595 times)

m@m · « **on:** April 05, 2011, 08:37 »

Is anyone else getting the good old "poor lighting/composition" rejections from 123rf again?...I've gotten two batch of photos rejected for that reason, but the same pictures where accepted on all the other sites...

RacePhoto · « **Reply #2 on:** April 06, 2011, 00:23 »

Quote from: m@m on April 05, 2011, 08:37

Is anyone else getting the good old "poor lighting/composition" rejections from 123rf again?...I've gotten two batch of photos rejected for that reason, but the same pictures where accepted on all the other sites...

Nope because I cashed out and left. But I will say, that in the last month everything except one image has gotten the "poor lighting, colors, or composition" rejection on IS. One was an isolation and it was refused for stray pixels. It was shot isolated, not PS'ed. So there's the end for me

123RF was usually more consistent and took things without random reasons that didn't match the image.

Any site can refuse anything for any darn reason, poor composition is a catch all. So is poor lighting, possible color balance and focus not where we think it's best. Also "these type of images don't sell well". So I guess it gets to the point where the reason means nothing. Not attacking 123RF, they all do the same thing, which is ridiculous.

MHjerpe · « **Reply #3 on:** April 06, 2011, 01:18 »

Quote from: m@m on April 05, 2011, 08:37

Is anyone else getting the good old "poor lighting/composition" rejections from 123rf again?...I've gotten two batch of photos rejected for that reason, but the same pictures where accepted on all the other sites...

Same here.. I'm just started to upload stuff at 123rf.. of 25 images.. 8 made it.. all others "Poor Lighting/Composition" seems to be a standard answer on "bad" files. the fun part.. all of those files is accepted on the biggest competitor site.. and they actullay sale..
Maybe 123rf wan't other files.. unique ones.. I don't know... thought Isto** had wery strick inspectors.. but I was wrong..

lagereek · « **Reply #4 on:** April 06, 2011, 01:36 »

Quote from: MHjerpe on April 06, 2011, 01:18

Quote from: m@m on April 05, 2011, 08:37
Is anyone else getting the good old "poor lighting/composition" rejections from 123rf again?...I've gotten two batch of photos rejected for that reason, but the same pictures where accepted on all the other sites...

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #5 on:** April 06, 2011, 04:09 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on April 06, 2011, 00:23

Any site can refuse anything for any darn reason, poor composition is a catch all. So is poor lighting, possible color balance and focus not where we think it's best. Also "these type of images don't sell well". So I guess it gets to the point where the reason means nothing. Not attacking 123RF, they all do the same thing, which is ridiculous.

I have always found this to be an issue with 123rf. poor lighting/composition is two reasons, but it's the only button the reviewers seem to have. It doesn't give us an idea of why our images are rejected, so how can we change things if we don't know what is wrong. Anglee, we could do with a few more variants of rejection reasons, or better still a few less rejections..

lagereek · « **Reply #6 on:** April 06, 2011, 05:11 »

Yesteday I purposely submitted and keyworded some "engineer and oil industry files" pics like these and similar are selling for thousands of bucks every year and its much thanks to shots like this that I reached Diamond status at IS.

however, would you believe?? reviewer says poor lightning, this reviewer mistook light-blue toned industy for a WB error! jeez, the WB, etc, was something I leart some 20 years ago when drumscanning large-formats.

Nah, these people dont have a clue really, I recon if its not just strictly generic stuff they dont know, heaven forbid if you should upload Duplex toned images.

m@m · « **Reply #7 on:** April 06, 2011, 09:56 »

Quote from: Anglee on April 05, 2011, 22:02

Quote from: m@m on April 05, 2011, 08:37
Is anyone else getting the good old "poor lighting/composition" rejections from 123rf again?...I've gotten two batch of photos rejected for that reason, but the same pictures where accepted on all the other sites...

Hi m@m,

Kindly email your UID and the images codes to [email protected] so that we can re-evaluate them.

Have a pleasant day.

Cheers,
Anglee

Hello Anglee, thanks but no thanks, I've come to the conclusion that uploading a good photo once to a site should be work enough for any contributor, having to go back and forth with you guys to get them accepted is just not worth the effort to me...specially when the photos in question where accepted on 9 other sites, 3 of them top producers.

Best.

lagereek · « **Reply #8 on:** April 06, 2011, 11:18 »

Its pointless mailing them or re-upload again, just a waste of time and the next and next uploads?? the same things will happen again. what a circle.

m@m · « **Reply #9 on:** April 06, 2011, 11:34 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 06, 2011, 11:18

Its pointless mailing them or re-upload again, just a waste of time and the next and next uploads?? the same things will happen again. what a circle.

My point exactly lagereek...being doing the mailing and re-uploading thing for years now and am sick of playing in the circle...

donding · « **Reply #10 on:** April 06, 2011, 19:40 »

Every time someone complains in the forum...we always here the same ol same ol from them

"Kindly email your UID and the images codes to [email protected] so that we can re-evaluate them."

It shouldn't have to be that way to begin with....that's why I don't upload to them anymore and I think a lot of others have done the same. We shouldn't have to go through the hassle when they are good photos to begin with and have already been accepted at other sites. My sales are terrible there and the reason being is because the biggest part of the big sellers were rejected there. They'd have more of a following with contributors if they did it right the first time and would be making money rather than losing sales and customers.

Anglee I really think you need to take that into mind if you really want to compete with the big boys.

lagereek · « **Reply #11 on:** April 07, 2011, 01:24 »

Anglee!!

You seam to be the head of this Dept. so why dont you train these people a bit more. I was doing picture-editing 20 years back with both Image-bank and Stones-Worldwide!. Its pretty hard to pull wool over my eyes with bad lighting rubbish.
Besides, havent you got the softwares that will tell what type of lighting, toning, duplexing are dominant in a digital file?

Reviewing pictures is in fact one of the more important aspects in a photo-agency.

There are three questions a professional Editor should ask himself. Is the picture commercial? will it sell? after that comes the creative aspects and then last comes the technical aspects.
The technical aspects is the less important and is mostly taken for granted, a picture-editor should be able to do this almost with his eyes closed.

Your team or whoever is doing the reviewing is after what I can see, discarding everything which isnt shot in pure daylight with blinding sunshine, i.e. WB-daylight-sunny. We are not all holliday/weekend snappers here.

best. Christian

Xalanx · « **Reply #12 on:** April 07, 2011, 02:53 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 07, 2011, 01:24

The technical aspects is the less important and is mostly taken for granted, a picture-editor should be able to do this almost with his eyes closed.

Sorry Christian, that's Dreamstime's reviewers prerogative. Or Chuck Norris'

bddigitalimages · « **Reply #13 on:** April 12, 2011, 08:30 »

So, if I crop the photo just a hair and adjust the lighting just a hair I should be able to send it back in with the poor composition and lighting fixed,...right? And of course I am talking about the ones that have been approved at other sites and might have even had a sale. Or should I just say to myself that I guess they just do not want it and let it go?

m@m · « **Reply #14 on:** April 12, 2011, 09:10 »

Quote from: bddigitalimages on April 12, 2011, 08:30

So, if I crop the photo just a hair and adjust the lighting just a hair I should be able to send it back in with the poor composition and lighting fixed,...right? And of course I am talking about the ones that have been approved at other sites and might have even had a sale. Or should I just say to myself that I guess they just do not want it and let it go?

IMHO...your second choice sounds about right...hey! if they don't want it someone else will

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Poor lighting/composition (Read 9595 times)

m@m

Angel

RacePhoto

MHjerpe

lagereek

Microstock Posts

lagereek

m@m

lagereek

m@m

donding

lagereek

Xalanx

bddigitalimages

m@m

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors