The 'chop off' Rejection

[rubyroo]

Just curious as to whether anyone's ever figured why BigStock are the only agency that rejects images because a part of the object is cropped?  Even now that they are affiliated to Shutterstock, they still seem to use this rejection reason.   Is it just me, or do others find this odd?

I do understand their point when they say that the whole object is more 'useful' - but it seems that all the other agencies appreciate that a cropped macro has a beauty and appeal of it's own.

[WarrenPrice]

I think the problem with rules is the enforcement.   
BigStock has rejected a lot of my stuff on "cropped too tightly."
Their sales might improve if they used judgment more than rules.   

PS:  I've also had rejections for TOO MUCH white space.   

[cathyslife]

I think that buyers have complained in the past that images are cropped too tightly. Designers like to have the whole object in the scene so that they can do the crop themselves. I have gotten a few of those rejections.

[rubyroo]

Do you mean you've had that rejection from other agencies too?

In my case, I've only ever had that rejection from BigStock... so I thought they were the only ones.

[cathyslife]

Do you mean you've had that rejection from other agencies too?

In my case, I've only ever had that rejection from BigStock... so I thought they were the only ones.

I have gotten rejections from BigStock for cropping too tightly. But I remember buyers at IS were complaining about the same thing, too tight cropping. But I never got a rejection for it there or other sites.

[WarrenPrice]

I've had some at DT, poor composition.  I think it was just the closest button to "too many similar." 

[rubyroo]

You make a good point there Warren... maybe the 'composition' rejection on other agencies covers the same issue, and it's just that BigStock happen to have a very specifically-worded rejection message for object-chopping.