MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Rejects at 123rf to clear the pending queue?  (Read 25782 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: May 19, 2010, 18:18 »
0
123rf .. I thought it's my secret slow but steady earner and such a shameless mass rejection. Photos that are accepted and sell  well on other sites.

I've sent another batch but if they will spit on it again - I'll spit on 123rf too.


youralleffingnuts

    This user is banned.
« Reply #26 on: May 19, 2010, 19:31 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 19:56 by sunnymars »

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #27 on: May 19, 2010, 21:29 »
0
Once I hit payout in the year 2020, I will definitely delete my account. I've been on there for over a year and have had a total of 29 sales for a total of 19.76. They have the same content as all the other sites that sell well. With mass rejections and no sales....it's not worth the time or aggravation so I no longer upload there.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #28 on: May 19, 2010, 21:58 »
0
Not a lot but sales are coming slowly ... 10-20 each month.  Hoping to see an increase when the editorial stuff gets started.

And YES... reviews are slow and rejections ... confusing.

« Reply #29 on: May 20, 2010, 01:58 »
0
I uploaded 10 last night and they were already reviewed 6 hrs later. 8 out of 10 were rejected (Poor Lighting/Composition), a model with a very dark business suit, but lit well and with ample detail in the darks, as you can expect with a Canon 5DII and 2 700w lightboxes.

Four days earlier, 9 out of 10 of the same shoot were accepted but the model was wearing a light-toned dress.

I think Ivan's hypothesis is right. They are using an automated process or software to do a pre-evaluation on the light levels. This would explain the super-fast "review". The software is apparently totally dumb, as I had 80%+ acceptance in the 4 years I'm with 123RF, and with a worse cam. The fact that they currently agree to do a manual re-evaluation proves that they are aware of the software flaws. It's either this or the hiring of new totally ignorant reviewers.

I uploaded a bunch of editorial a while ago, and all of that was accepted, which indicates that the reviews were done manually by the old experienced reviewers.

I have no intent whatsoever to beg for re-evaluation. That's me. Don't want it? Fine, it will sell elsewhere. I even deleted the 2 ones that were accepted as they were not as good as the ones rejected, and I will mark this batch as "not uploaded" and replace it with a red stop. No uploads any more till they get their review process right again.

« Reply #30 on: May 21, 2010, 07:20 »
0
I have no intent whatsoever to beg for re-evaluation. That's me. Don't want it? Fine, it will sell elsewhere. I even deleted the 2 ones that were accepted as they were not as good as the ones rejected, and I will mark this batch as "not uploaded" and replace it with a red stop. No uploads any more till they get their review process right again.

I've followed this thread since its inception and just thought it was the usual "complaint" vent. However, after waiting almost 2 weeks to have my last batch reviewed, everyone one of them rejected (previously 83% acceptance). 123 consistanly makes up 20% of my revenue so I'm not going to pull the plug on them but will treat them just like Fotolia; no more uploads and no "beg for re-evaluation".

youralleffingnuts

    This user is banned.
« Reply #31 on: May 21, 2010, 07:44 »
0
..
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 19:54 by sunnymars »

« Reply #32 on: May 21, 2010, 08:10 »
0
I uploaded 10 last night and they were already reviewed 6 hrs later. 8 out of 10 were rejected (Poor Lighting/Composition), a model with a very dark business suit, but lit well and with ample detail in the darks, as you can expect with a Canon 5DII and 2 700w lightboxes.

Four days earlier, 9 out of 10 of the same shoot were accepted but the model was wearing a light-toned dress.

I think Ivan's hypothesis is right. They are using an automated process or software to do a pre-evaluation on the light levels. This would explain the super-fast "review". The software is apparently totally dumb, as I had 80%+ acceptance in the 4 years I'm with 123RF, and with a worse cam. The fact that they currently agree to do a manual re-evaluation proves that they are aware of the software flaws. It's either this or the hiring of new totally ignorant reviewers.

I uploaded a bunch of editorial a while ago, and all of that was accepted, which indicates that the reviews were done manually by the old experienced reviewers.

I have no intent whatsoever to beg for re-evaluation. That's me. Don't want it? Fine, it will sell elsewhere. I even deleted the 2 ones that were accepted as they were not as good as the ones rejected, and I will mark this batch as "not uploaded" and replace it with a red stop. No uploads any more till they get their review process right again.



Same experience here.  Last batch had a 50% acceptance ratio with all those taken having a right leaning histogram.

« Reply #33 on: May 21, 2010, 10:18 »
0
I have recently started getting into the MS industry and although I have been a photographer for over 10 years I was not accustomed to the extreme quality standards of the MS industry.  So I submitted a bunch of my photos that were on my HD to a number of the MS agencies and most were declined and rightfully so. (Focus, noise, artifacts, the such).  7 out of 8 of the photos were accepted at 123rf. 

So there is something funny going on.  Im not going to complain because Im glad that they got accepted but it seems like the bad photos are being accepted and good ones rejected.   Maybe someone inversed the 0 - 1 setting on the software in it is doing the opposite of what it is suppose to.  LOL

Just thought I would share.  This is my first post.

« Reply #34 on: May 21, 2010, 10:29 »
0
I haven't been able to get the upload to work for the last week or two. It just crashes.

Roadrunner

  • Roadrunner
« Reply #35 on: May 21, 2010, 11:00 »
0
Based on some of the responses, I see why I have to concentrate on only three sites.

I am convinced some of us just aren't worthy of acceptance on some sites.  The Canon 5D MKII seems to be the only camera acceptable to one of the big boys.  No matter what I do - 90% or more gets rejected at a particular site.  123RF and FT are fussy, but not that tough.  Perhaps I should forget the Canon site as I am already locked into Nikon due to the lenses I have.  Of course if I try a Nikon D3s it might get something accepted.  I can't justify that kind of cash layout for microstock.  Especially since my biggest problem is choosing not to work with professional models and multiple lighting equipment.

So whether they call it overfiltered, composition, harsh lighting, no commercial value or too many, doesn't matter in some cases.  All of those can be valid reasons, but not all reviewers have the same vision, and some sites dictate policy that can bias the decisions.

I'll primarily concentrate on the three sites that seem to like my work, and that actually sell my images even if they come from the lowly held Nikon. 

Just keep plugging and don't wory about those that reject you.  Continue to work with those that appreciate your effforts.  Be thankful for your success no matter where it lies!

« Reply #36 on: May 21, 2010, 12:50 »
0
I've followed this thread since its inception and just thought it was the usual "complaint" vent. However, after waiting almost 2 weeks to have my last batch reviewed, everyone one of them rejected (previously 83% acceptance). 123 consistanly makes up 20% of my revenue so I'm not going to pull the plug on them but will treat them just like Fotolia; no more uploads and no "beg for re-evaluation".
+ 1. But I will delete all my accepted editorials. They are not worth it. Upload is blocked for a wile. Let's see what happens.

« Reply #37 on: May 21, 2010, 21:17 »
0
Perhaps if more people stop uploading they will start to listen?

+1

« Reply #38 on: May 24, 2010, 07:56 »
0
An update. My last batch that was 8/10 rejected by 123RF for 'bad lighting' was accepted 10/10 by picky iStock. There is certainly something wrong with the "new" 123RF review process. For them, I hope they will come to their senses before the exodus starts. It costs Veer a lot of money now to get the deserters back that voted with their feet last year, by their weird reviewing practices.
For 7.63$ in May (compared to 33$ April 2009), I won't let my sleep. Well, those iPads have to be paid by somebody. If they want to promote their site with moronic sweepstakes as if they were a shampoo brand, polluting twitter, I am tempted to untweet them for that.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2010, 10:02 by FD-amateur »

sc

« Reply #39 on: May 24, 2010, 11:46 »
0
Following this thread for a while and I was concerned for the last images I uploaded to 123rf.
I had two batches totaling 75 images all accepted, as usual.
Though they did take a while to get through the queue.
But I have found that rejected images are occasional if not rare at 123rf.
They are still a low earner for me (#5 on my list this month).
Sorry the rest of you seem to be having so much problem there,
but things are OK for some of us.

« Reply #40 on: May 24, 2010, 13:20 »
0
I had a few rejections from my last big batch, but nothing shocking.  Right now 123's just a hair out of 4th and $3.50 behind DT for 3rd.  They've had more than usual server problems this month, but have otherwise been a fine second tier agency.

« Reply #41 on: May 25, 2010, 21:18 »
0
I have just sent a email to 123RF.. will let you know how it went.. :P

have around 90% approval but the lastest batch just 3 approved of 47! (lighting/composition)

more confusing is that 40 accepted on SS and about 35 on FT

« Reply #42 on: May 26, 2010, 12:48 »
0
+1 so I stopped submitting photos there until they will wake up, a waste of time.

« Reply #43 on: May 27, 2010, 02:56 »
0

  >:( Poor Lighting/Composition
        Poor Lighting/Composition
        Poor Lighting/Composition
        Poor Lighting/Composition
        Poor Lighting/Composition,

i started thinking i waist my time there.

« Reply #44 on: December 29, 2010, 16:02 »
0
« Last Edit: December 29, 2010, 16:08 by borg »

« Reply #45 on: December 29, 2010, 16:59 »
0
Same here on the last 13 I submitted all were rejected for "minimal commercial value".

Is that even worse than "limited commercial value"?

I guess I'll have to stop submitting there for a while 'til they decide they want images again.

At least the reviews are quick now.

« Reply #46 on: December 29, 2010, 17:11 »
0
Yep  it is "Minimal commercial value" even worse than limited... ;D

Serious, if this continues, will become a "Sisyphus job" to upload here...

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #47 on: December 29, 2010, 17:29 »
0
You'd think they would pay attention to what is being said here about the rejects and realize they are losing money. They have rejected a lot of my photos for that also and they are almost always big sellers on the other sites. My last set of 16 rejects were all rejected for "Minimal Commercial Value", and the 60 before that were rejected for "Poor Lighting/Composition" They obviously don't have trained reviewers or they need to have their monitors re calibrated. Uploading to them was one of my biggest mistakes. Now it's just sit and wait for a payout which I might reach in the next two years....it would be quicker if they actually approved the ones that sell. As soon as I hit it I'm out of there.

« Reply #48 on: December 29, 2010, 17:32 »
0
oh yeah 123RF is the most craziest agency ever eheheh one day approves everything other day all got reject :)

if you have a minute send them email telling that other agencies approve those pictures (links lol a lot of work) but they will approve them..

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #49 on: December 29, 2010, 17:40 »
0
I'm not going to mess with them...I'm tired of having to do all the work for these places. I have better things to do with my time. ;)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
8752 Views
Last post September 20, 2006, 17:12
by madelaide
2 Replies
3338 Views
Last post January 13, 2010, 11:37
by etienjones
11 Replies
3399 Views
Last post October 16, 2012, 06:23
by ProImage
4 Replies
3822 Views
Last post May 06, 2015, 12:30
by Semmick Photo
4 Replies
3291 Views
Last post December 11, 2018, 11:57
by davidbautista

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors