MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: New revievers  (Read 13511 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 22, 2008, 18:57 »
0
I see that threre are new rewievers are at BS. I have 95% aceptance ratio with shity photos but in last 15 or 20 days they rejections are about 30% of uploaded photos which are accepted on SS IS and others.
Has some of you notice that?
Also have first photo in portfolio of about 700 pics rejected for bad keywords precise of too much words which do not corespond to it.
Is it new politics like on CS or ...


« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2008, 23:23 »
0
same for me. suddenly, rejections came ...

suwanneeredhead

  • O.I.D. Sufferer (Obsessive Illustration Disorder)
« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2008, 23:55 »
0
i think sometimes new reviewers want to err on the side of caution and not let something through that they might get busted for later!

« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2008, 02:52 »
0
Glad to hear it's not just me. I mentioned this in another thread here about whether BigStock is worth it. I normally get a 95% or so acceptance rate at BigStock, but my last batch was 15% (85% acceptance at other agencies, a direct opposite). Among the rejection reasons included "Dull, lifeless color: Colors are dull or lackluster. Sometimes this can be fixed using some saturation boost in Photoshop" for a bird whose plumage is a natural dull brown for camouflage. It downright annoyed me that they wanted the colour to be "boosted" in such way since it'd no longer be the same species. They haven't replied to my query yet either.

« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2008, 12:41 »
0
LOL  Joyce!  I had to laugh at your comment about the bird because they did a similar thing to me.  I have a picture of two rhinos sleeping in the mud.  They rejected it and said I should use a color enhancing software to bring out the colors.  I resubmitted it with a note to review it again and said if you don't like these colors, then what colors do you want me to make them because this is exactly what colors they were.  I never got a reply, but in a couple days they accepted it.  LOL

« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2008, 13:08 »
0
Don't know about anyone else, but if I boost the saturation too much it causes posterization in some of the darker colors and looks fake. BigStock and a lot of other sites have very poor thumbnails and previews which have been leached of color when they are created on their end (to make them smaller?). Maybe they should stop blaming the lack of color on us and improve the quality of their previews.

« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2008, 13:36 »
0
Don't know about anyone else, but if I boost the saturation too much it causes posterization in some of the darker colors and looks fake. BigStock and a lot of other sites have very poor thumbnails and previews which have been leached of color when they are created on their end (to make them smaller?). Maybe they should stop blaming the lack of color on us and improve the quality of their previews.

somehow i don't think that BigStock judged photos from thumbnails. reviewers always view it at 100%; the more critical reviewers even at 200%...
eg. coming back with "sorry, can't accept this, due to the license plate of a parked car in the left corner".

my suggestion is to process two versions. one less saturated .
BigStock is not the only site who do not want over-saturation, i think IS too.
over-processing is a bane, not a boon .
careful.


« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2008, 13:39 »
0
Also have first photo in portfolio of about 700 pics rejected for bad keywords precise of too much words which do not corespond to it.
Is it new politics like on CS or ...

no, it's not politics, it's SPAMming.
many sites do police against that. it hurts you and the sites, as clients will get tired of going to a image that does not refer to the keyword.
better less than more. in this sense of keywords.

« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2008, 13:43 »
0
Quote
somehow i don't think that BigStock judged photos from thumbnails. reviewers always view it at 100%; the more critical reviewers even at 200%...
eg. coming back with "sorry, can't accept this, due to the license plate of a parked car in the left corner".

What I'm saying is that BigStock (and DT) want us to over-saturate the colors on our end because when they process them for thumbnails and previews, the original color of the photo is degraded. I don't see this problem of dull thumbnails with IS, for example.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2008, 13:56 by epantha »

« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2008, 14:08 »
0
Big changes at BigStock for the review of vector illustrations too.

BigStock used to accept jpg versions of the vectors and the eps files as separate submissions (sort of like SS does). A few days ago BigStock started to reject jpgs with the keyword 'vector'. Then soon they began to reject the jpgs themselves and to request the submission of the eps files only.

« Reply #10 on: May 23, 2008, 18:25 »
0
LOL  Joyce!  I had to laugh at your comment about the bird because they did a similar thing to me.  I have a picture of two rhinos sleeping in the mud.  They rejected it and said I should use a color enhancing software to bring out the colors.  I resubmitted it with a note to review it again and said if you don't like these colors, then what colors do you want me to make them because this is exactly what colors they were.  I never got a reply, but in a couple days they accepted it.  LOL

Haha, that's great Tazzy! I'm still waiting to hear a reply from them on mine though but I had something along those lines.

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #11 on: May 23, 2008, 20:38 »
0
Just ran into this today.  I've been running just below 99% acceptance when they rejected two portraits for artifacts, chromic abberations, etc.  Both were in-camera isolations on black and passed the reviewers at SS, IS and DT no sweat.  So I don't think so!   >:(  I've not had enough rejections at BS to ever question them, but I just may this time.  Unfortunately, I haven't a clue how to go about it.  What's the "normal" procedure?   ???

« Reply #12 on: May 25, 2008, 11:37 »
0
hmmmmm
« Last Edit: May 25, 2008, 11:40 by rjmiz »

« Reply #13 on: May 25, 2008, 11:58 »
0
Sorry Miz, I don't think humming at them will work. Email has better results.

DanP68

« Reply #14 on: May 26, 2008, 05:27 »
0
I had a big batch just go through with about 80-85% acceptance.  Lower than normal, but nothing to get excited about.  If they are raising their standards, I don't have a problem with it. 

I actually got a really nice comment from one of the reviewers on an image.  At first I thought it was a rejection because all feedback is written in red.  But actually it was a request  to upload more of the same.   :D 

Good folks at Bigstockphoto.  I've always liked them.

CofkoCof

« Reply #15 on: May 29, 2008, 18:18 »
0
Some strange rejections here also. I think one of the reviewers doesn't know the difference between blurry and shallow dof :D

« Reply #16 on: May 29, 2008, 20:16 »
0
Guess it's time to back off on uploads at BigStock while the reviewers get broken in.

« Reply #17 on: May 29, 2008, 20:37 »
0
WOW, same for me. Until last week I had 98% acceptance. Then the last batch got about 50% rejection. Lot of "blurry" rejections and some "artifacts" rejections. Most of these photos accepted at the other major sites.

The other sites are working nicely to push me toward iStock exclusivity. I find reviewers at iStock super picky but almost always logical.

« Reply #18 on: May 31, 2008, 04:07 »
0
I'm preparing a batch to give iStock a go. BigStock haven't replied to my query via their contact form yet... It's been almost 2 weeks now and it's probably never getting answered. Nothing unusual actually. Of various support emails/forms I have sent them over the past 3 years they've only replied to 1 out of the 6-7 -- including one about a new buyer I referred not being able to retrieve their password right after registration (this happened last month).

They used the contact form too and after a week of being ignored (never actually got a response) they just signed up at 123RF to purchase photos instead. I didn't think they'd even ignore queries that involve buyers not being able to spend money there. Really, their customer service has left much to be desired.

« Reply #19 on: May 31, 2008, 14:26 »
0
Many of my images that have been accepted at DT, SS, and others are being rejected at BigStock for stupid reasons. I am beginning to believe they hired the visually impaired for reviewer.

BigStock is quickly moving to the top of my crap list: long approval times, stupid reject reason, and SLOW SALES.

« Reply #20 on: May 31, 2008, 19:32 »
0
Of the nine agencies I've signed up with in the last few months, BigStock is by far the least impressive. Un-user friendly website interface (everything seems hidden), very bad over-compressed thumbnails and previews with color leached out, super long review times. I'm ready to dump them already. Should I give them six months?

« Reply #21 on: May 31, 2008, 21:09 »
0
Of the nine agencies I've signed up with in the last few months, BigStock is by far the least impressive. Un-user friendly website interface (everything seems hidden), very bad over-compressed thumbnails and previews with color leached out, super long review times. I'm ready to dump them already. Should I give them six months?

I have done good a BigStock, give them the time.

« Reply #22 on: August 01, 2008, 12:22 »
0
Many of my images that have been accepted at DT, SS, and others are being rejected at BigStock for stupid reasons. I am beginning to believe they hired the visually impaired for reviewer.

BigStock is quickly moving to the top of my crap list: long approval times, stupid reject reason, and SLOW SALES.


I'm ahead of you! BigStock is already on my crap list. Rejections is one thing but making up excuses (stupid ones) to give rejects for good shots is another thing. Then insult you and call it a snapshot!

My "snapshots" are done with a Canon DSLR and I only use Canon "L" lenses. nothing else. My lowest cost lens is $1,049.00 at a B&H discount.

I shoot at ISO 100 Only and use PS2 for all image work and start from RAW.

I have only been doing this (photography) for the 55+ Years so I do not think I'm totally stupid.

They think fog and mist in the air is grain! or noise, but they guessed at a bunch of reasons to be certain of hitting what they think is the right one. If they can't convince you perhaps they can fool you.

Mist = Grain/Noise?

Not me!

Over and out with BigStock.

-Larry
« Last Edit: August 01, 2008, 12:30 by Lcjtripod »

« Reply #23 on: August 03, 2008, 15:14 »
0
I have rejections lately, but not that much to start complaining

« Reply #24 on: October 21, 2008, 11:44 »
0
After 3 years of almost 98% approvals at BigStock, and after resuming uploads after a 5 months stop, if must have hit the new Atilla-class of reviewers too. Second batch had 6/10 rejects, 5 for 'no stock', 1 for noise. The "noise" one was accepted at SS and the "no stock" ones were accepted at DT. Say no more.

I guess the new reviewer(s) has/have to lose some testosterone first. How long would that take? I just uploaded a new batch of 10 and will just see. If not, I guess I start reuploading when the DJIA is at 10,000 again.  ;D


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors