MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Bigstock has lost all of my respect  (Read 8940 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« on: May 16, 2006, 07:14 »
In terms of a corporation, Bigstock has lost all of my respect.  They have been having server problems for over a month, which is pretty sad because their entire system is based on the functionality of their server.  I had a response to one of my e-mails saying they had a renegade rejecting everything and server problems - but what it seems here is the lack of proper control by management. 

It would appear that this could possibly be the future of all mismanaged microstock companies that don't have the proper skills to adapt properly to the ever-changing environment.  What I know is that you can't blame your own inadequacies forever.

Just my thoughts.

« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2006, 08:31 »
What server problems?

How long did it take them to catch the renegade reviewer, from the sounds of things not to long.

Not trying to defend them but all companies have their issues.

« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2006, 10:17 »
Not sure what server problems.  Thats what they tell me but no one else seems to have any issues except me.  I never get any reviews (its been 2 weeks and still none) and everytime its a "server problem" - it seems as if they are either lying to me because no one else has my issues.

"What gives?"

And its been forever and Fotolia hasn't approved ANY of my recent uploads - about 2 weeks now...I'm sad

« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2006, 10:18 »
Ooops, forgot one thing:

Don't know how long it took to catch the reviewer, but I just would like someone to review my pictures.

« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2006, 12:36 »
hmm.. well then you were right before.. wasn't there a thread about a nasty reviewer..

that is odd about the server things.. i haven't ever had problems logging in.. not sure about reviews though, i think they have been going fine, but i haven't really kept track of how long they have been taking.

« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2006, 17:20 »
I haven't noticed any server problems, and I log in everyday.  They were a bit slow on the approvals, some images uploaded on the 7th were approved a few days later, others only yesterday.  I've followed the thread of the reviewer, but I'm not sure he was doing something wrong or was just still in the learning process of being a inspector. 


« Reply #6 on: May 16, 2006, 20:31 »
have not upload on Bigstock for  while, last upload probably 2-3 weeks back.

But I usually get my photo approved within a day or two. Sometimes within an hour.

No problem logging in.

« Reply #7 on: May 16, 2006, 22:17 »
I've never had any problems logging in but I do have a problem logging out using Safari browser. This will be my best month at BigStock (unless something terrible happens for last two weeks of May) with only a few pics uploaded.

« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2006, 08:17 »
I don't think the server problems had anything to do with logging in.  I have never had any problems logging in either.  I really don't know what it is because I've never been told anything in particular.

I just wish the 4 pictures I have in queue would get reviewed.  They've been there for almost 3 weeks

« Reply #9 on: May 17, 2006, 11:01 »
Renegade reviewer that explains a lot though thanks to that person I slipped below the magic 50% mark so now I can only have 30 photos in the pending queue, which can be rather annoying.

Are we allowed to resubmit images?

Sales aren't great but at least its only $30 before you can cash out.

« Reply #10 on: May 17, 2006, 11:31 »
$30 cash out is good - especially since I got a $20 sale so it is my first site that I qualify for cash - Yay! It is a race between SS and DT for second. Place your bets and feel free to rig it by downloading my photos (links are at the bottom ;) )

I wonder if/when any of the other sites will reduce the minimum payout. SS is $75 and from my understanding, all the rest are $100. I guess it means they get to use the money for longer and get to hold onto the money indefinately if you dont ever get to that amount.

[EDIT - just remembered that Fotolia have no minimum payout but you need $50 to avoid a fee to get a payment]

« Reply #11 on: May 17, 2006, 11:57 »
Quoting from my microstock guide http://www.fintastique.com/guide.htm which I haven't plugged for a while minimum payouts

Featurepics $50
PSM 60 euros
StockXpert $50
Fotolia $50 with no $1 surcharge

Incidently the results from my google adwords experiment an advert linking to my guide

in two weeks 17 bought 860,000 appearances 156 clicks and no sign ups or sales I can see - bugger.

« Reply #12 on: July 20, 2006, 15:31 »
I had the same feeling today.
Since I started joining Microstock on July 8th, I have 11 out of 11 approved from ( after the initial 3 rejected )Istock, 5 out of 10 from Shutterstock ( waiting for one month ), 42 out 60 approved at FT, and 11 out 13 out of Dreamstimes, but I got 0 out 11 approved by Bigstock?
is that normal? i am thinking Istock and shutterstock are the more retrict one, now bigstock rejects everything?

« Reply #13 on: July 20, 2006, 16:49 »
yeah, that sounds odd that bigstock is so strict.  maybe you got a newby reviewer.

« Reply #14 on: July 20, 2006, 16:54 »
deranged reviewer what their reason for rejection?

« Reply #15 on: July 20, 2006, 17:21 »
Here are the reasons:

 641762 Big Sky Country
 Reason: Graininess/Noise - please review Articles & Tutorial section to learn how to avoid this issue ...thanks again.

 641763 Cannon Beach
 Reason: Graininess/Noise - please review Articles & Tutorial section to learn how to avoid this issue ...thanks again.

 641764 Tulip Festival
 Reason: Graininess/Noise - please review Articles & Tutorial section to learn how to avoid this issue ...thanks again.

 641765 Tulip Field
 Reason: artifacts/Graininess/Noise - please review Articles & Tutorial section to learn how to avoid this issue ...thanks again.

 641766 Mount St Helens
 Reason: Graininess/Noise - please review Articles & Tutorial section to learn how to avoid this issue ...thanks again.

 641767 Coldwater Lake
 Reason: Graininess/Noise - please review Articles & Tutorial section to learn how to avoid this issue ...thanks again.

 641768 Leaves
 Reason: Graininess/Noise - please review Articles & Tutorial section to learn how to avoid this issue ...thanks again.

 641769 Seagull
 Reason: Graininess/Noise - please review Articles & Tutorial section to learn how to avoid this issue ...thanks again.

 641771 Main entrance
 Reason: Graininess/Noise - please review Articles & Tutorial section to learn how to avoid this issue ...thanks again.

so it's all about noise, some of them may have some noise when viewed 100%, but some are barely visible for any noise since photos were taken in good light, with good exposure at ISO200.

By the way I just got my first sale from FT after approval on July 11th with 42 images, Yeah!:)

« Reply #16 on: July 20, 2006, 19:23 »
After flunking the Shutterstock test for noise and having to wait three months I always filter the sky (the method is detailed in my guide) regardless of the ISO setting sometimes I get rejections over overfiltering but very seldomly

Though if it was a genuine noise issue I would have thought Istock and SS would have picked up with it. Maybe BigStock saw a very noisy one first and then assumed the rest were very noisy without looking. Did SS mention noise on the ones they rejected. As they delete the thumbnails of rejected photos after a month I tend to "print screen" and paste into powerpoint to keep track of what they didn't like and why.

I tend to find if only one agency picks up on a problem that can be fixed (but will take some time) I tend not to bother fixing it but then I have quite a few photos to play with.

Congrats on your first sale at FT always a good day I am sure after a few monhs you will be cursing them sending you an e-mail every time you sell a photo.

« Reply #17 on: July 20, 2006, 19:52 »
I've often found BigStock staff friendly and generally reply quickly when you email them (no forum post).  Just today I had one image rejected due to similarity with another image uploaded in the same lot, I emailed them highlighting the differences and they reviewed and approved the image.  So if you email them, I'm sure they will at least explain better what was wrong.


« Reply #18 on: July 20, 2006, 21:32 »
Yeah, after 0 out 11 from Bigstock, the first sale from FT is very delightful, and I just got another email from FT that my second sale came in, so it's a good day for me, at least I had two sales today, totally 0.99, probably the hardest 0.99 I ever earned in my life. :)

that was the first batch I submit to everyone, I guess the noise is an issue when viewed 100%, but somehow Shutterphoto accepted 5 of 10 and fotolia the first 12 out of 13, so that was not something I will expect from BigStock, besides it took them 12 days:(

Anyway thanks for the encourgement, maybe I will run every batch through neat image from now on.

« Reply #19 on: July 21, 2006, 01:37 »
do you have any noise redution software?

« Reply #20 on: July 21, 2006, 03:41 »
OK this is my method of dealing with evil noise adapted from something I once found in a microstock forum and copy and pasted from my guide

You will need Adobe Photoshop (or an image editor that allows you to work with layers)

A noise filter program such as Noiseware

Understanding of working with layers in an image editor.

1 - Filter your picture for noise using Noiseware

2 - Open both original and filtered versions of the photo in your image editor

3 - Drag original version on top of filtered version (ensure perfect alignment)

4 - Set view to 100%

5 - Using the eraser tool, erase any areas of the top layer that are showing noise revealing the filtered layer beneath..

I always filter the sky, other areas to look at are surfaces that should be shiny (glass, metal) or deep shadows.

Remembering excessive filtering removes detail from the photo so I tend to leave stone, concrete, grass, trees, snow and water alone.

If you decide to brighten the image remember to merge the layers otherwise you will just brighten the top layer though this can be a useful way of spotting areas of the sky that have been missed.

6 - Save image under a different file name.

Does anyone else just selectively filter noise or does everyone else just filter the whole darn photo?

« Reply #21 on: July 21, 2006, 12:06 »
I normally don't do much noise reduction unless it's over ISO400 or more, now I just purchased the Neat Image, plan to batch process all the files I submit to some of the sites.
Now with 2 weeks (2 sales) under my belt( 46 at FT, 7 at IStock, 20 at Dreamstime, 0 at BST, 0 at SS ), I found lots of inconsistencies in what are accepatable what are not, here is my take:

Overall FT is the easiest, whether noise, keyword or anything, I don't have any issues
DT is very picky at key words and category, I got a whole batch of 11 out 12 rejected due to that while FT accepted all
BST rejects everything I submitted, granted this was my first submit, some noise in some files, even though FT took 12 of 13 of the same batch
SS rejects 5 out 10, so it seems they are OK to work with, I just need to eliminate the noise before I resubmit after one month
Istock seems very strict, but after the initial 3 rejections, I got the next 7 approved, now I am waiting for the fate of the batch which was totally rejected by DT, shall I take them down, or wait for my luck?

anybody has similar experience or quite different stories? thanks

« Reply #22 on: July 21, 2006, 12:20 »
FT is easy at them moment but this changes a bit.  i think they are gonig a bit easy as they want to get to the 1 million mark (I resubmitted a lot of rejected ones and got them accepted - only ones accepted and sold elsewhere).

« Reply #23 on: July 21, 2006, 13:10 »
I think at though each agency has its guidelines for reviewers at the end of the day, each reviewer is an individual and human they make mistakes. I have read elsewhere about the suggestion there is a rogue reviewer at SS who likes to reject whole batches of photos for spurious reasons, or reviewers desparate to clean the queue on a Friday evening.

Its yet another reason for not going exclusive.

FT have let their standards drop a few notches you only have to look at their increase with 4,000 new photos per day compared to Shutterstock and Istocks 2,000 per day.

Though FT are much more newbie friendly no draconian 1 month wait until you can submit another test batch after failure and sensible upload limits. If you have had a productive weekend limited to uploading 30 photos/week is a bit of a joke at iStock.

FT sales are very strange I don't seem to have any real best sellers unlike SS, iS or DT just a general spread lots of single downloads not that many multiple ones.

« Reply #24 on: July 21, 2006, 14:19 »
It does make sense they FT is more liberal these days in order to be the first one to reach 1m, I guess from now on I just have to use Neat Image for all my photos.


Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
Last post January 14, 2013, 15:55
by ruxpriencdiam
3 Replies
Last post April 10, 2013, 21:39
by Renee
21 Replies
Last post June 19, 2015, 01:07
by skyfish
17 Replies
Last post December 06, 2019, 08:41
by vectorblazer
12 Replies
Last post July 02, 2020, 20:13
by Roger Mitsom


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle