MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Dreamstime rejections  (Read 28316 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: November 28, 2006, 16:56 »
0
I'm an experienced photog, and I understand image quality pretty well.  I have a 90-100% acceptance rate at 6 of the big sites, having just started microstock and digital capture in late July.  However, Dreamytime still mystifies me.  I've got around 60% approval there.  What puzzles me is that they've rejected the majority of my non-people images as "well-covered in our database," etc.  The pictures they reject as "well-covered" in their database have not been well-covered in their database, and they're accepted nearly always at all my other sites. And of course they sell at the other sites, sometimes extremely well. BUT, as far as I can remember, DT have accepted ALL of my people pictures, even ones I wasn't overly pleased with.   So what gives?  For the time being I've stopped uploading non-people pix to them.  Hopefully that will bring my approval rating up.   They're really confusing. :-\ ??? ???


« Reply #26 on: November 28, 2006, 17:04 »
0
I run around 75% approval with DT.  The majority of rejections have been "well covered subect"  "too many on site now" and the bulk of those have been  landscape shots.  My largest sellers there are  interiors. For me, landscapes and landscapes with people in them sell very well at SS.   -tom

« Reply #27 on: November 29, 2006, 04:16 »
0
I am only a small fish on DT and finding it tough going with high rejects.

Have a few up already and will keep going. I suppose it's a learning process- albeit a tough one!!

Good luck with your subs.

« Reply #28 on: January 15, 2007, 15:19 »
0
DT accepted this one the other day:



so I uploaded more of this series (and I still have many to go, in other colors).  They were rejected for "Lack of composition", "Poor color", "Poor lighting setup, poor contrast or incorrect exposure" and "This is a very well covered subject in our data base", with three of these four reasons given in each of the following two images:



I don't see how they differ so much from the first one...  It's really new to me to have to many reasons for rejection in just one image.  I'm flattered! 

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #29 on: January 15, 2007, 19:20 »
0
DT accepted this one the other day:



so I uploaded more of this series (and I still have many to go, in other colors).  They were rejected for "Lack of composition", "Poor color", "Poor lighting setup, poor contrast or incorrect exposure" and "This is a very well covered subject in our data base", with three of these four reasons given in each of the following two images:



I don't see how they differ so much from the first one...  It's really new to me to have to many reasons for rejection in just one image.  I'm flattered! 

Regards,
Adelaide


Unfortunately, this seems like another case of one inspector liking your image, and another inspector not liking it.

« Reply #30 on: January 15, 2007, 20:06 »
0
Unfortunately, this seems like another case of one inspector liking your image, and another inspector not liking it.
Yes, but never a DT inspector hated my submissions like that.  :)

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #31 on: January 15, 2007, 20:55 »
0
I just only wish to know why inspectors should need to like or dislike our submissions. I know I'm not an inspector but I can see a good picture that I don't like. Those are very important concepts. What is a good image! and what I like just because it's appealing to my taste. What I'm trying to say is, as this is a global thing, people are very different one from the others and have different cultural backgrounds. This tend to make differences of judgement and what is appealing to me may be a very disgusting image from someone from the other side of the world. When one image is inspected, it can be done from someone from Tonga, US, Finland or from Pakistan. This can really as I understand make a big difference , but it's not the only one. I had a few rejections were I got the exact same feeling. And usually those images sell very well on other sites.

Adelaide
As I'm not an inspector, so I can say I like all 3 of them   ;)

« Reply #32 on: January 16, 2007, 18:58 »
0
As I'm not an inspector, so I can say I like all 3 of them   ;)

Obrigada, Miguel!  :)

In another thread a while ago I said that in my opinion, as long as an image is technically good (not necessarilly superb), it should not be rejected.  I think lighting in these ones are unusual - and that was my intention - but I don't think it is bad. 

My very first illustration was surprisingly accepted by DT - and it was so simple that I thought they never would - and it's been my best seller there.  So, we never know.

This one for instance, which I took for a request in SP, I sold 5 times in 3 different sites (StockXpert, BigStock and FT), so...


Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #33 on: January 18, 2007, 11:53 »
0
I've been trying for a year to figure out what DT wants. I just had one rejected today for "lack of composition." It was accepted this week at 5 other sites, has only been up since Monday and has already sold 30+ times, plus an extended license. And it hasn't even been reviewed by IS yet, which is where most of my sales are. So, if there's lack of composition, no one else is "seeing" it.  *sigh*

« Reply #34 on: January 18, 2007, 16:41 »
0
pattie,

Over 30 sales in a few days, I'm jealous.  I have very few images that reached that mark in months.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #35 on: January 18, 2007, 16:49 »
0
I have 95 percent acceptance rate on DT, even on big batches.  But very few sales there, so go figure.

« Reply #36 on: January 19, 2007, 05:41 »
0
i have very low acceptance rate there.......i hope to improve my acceptance rates there now that i have gotten a new camera ;-) We'll see when i load up...

« Reply #37 on: January 19, 2007, 10:29 »
0
DT rejections confuse and thoroughly annoy me. I've mentioned before that I seem to have a trend going with them. One entire batch will be rejected with their insulting comments about "poor execution, be more original, we have too many of these anyway, etc." Then the next entire batch will be accepted. Then the next one rejected, the next one accepted. That has been going on for months now. I don't upload anything except fractals there, and my execution is the same, lengthy process for all of them.

Just had a batch of 18 rejected this morning (immediately followed by a sale from the last accepted batch). Have 25 currently in the queue--if all goes as it has been, I expect they will be accepted.

I've thought of a new strategy. After an approved batch I will next upload 2 or 3 of my "lesser" images for the rejection round. Then upload a big batch of "good" images. So, my next upload will be a small one of "lesser" images.

Let you all know how that works.

P__

« Reply #38 on: January 19, 2007, 11:03 »
0
Adelaide, I just got lucky!  That doesn't usually happen for me, either. :-)
P, that sounds like a good strategy. That site drives me crazy...I don't know why I even submit there.  I actually quit for awhile, but I guess I'm a glutton for punishment.

« Reply #39 on: January 19, 2007, 14:23 »
0
Its crazy but it used to be the same for me.  They would reject first 20 percent and then accept all the rest.  But now my acceptance rate is much higher (about 95 percent).  I have also noticed that if you submit variations of a photoshoot (10 photos of the same model) they will only chose one or two.  Its break up these batches and stick them in between different submissions.

« Reply #40 on: January 19, 2007, 18:19 »
0
I used to like Dreamstime a lot, but I don't trust them anymore.

First, they seem to have a power complex.  They lock threads almost as much as iStock and they are very rude to their artists.  Some of their biggest supporters have jumped ship and quite a few others have told them to shove it as DT seems to lack any sense of customer service.

Second, they seem to be very sneaky about their implementations of new release.  You might have noticed that the way they implement things is to first add the new issue in a way that makes it seem great to artists.  Once artists have accepted it, they then implement the new version within a year and slam the artists that they say they so love.

For example, take subscriptions.  The first time they implemented subscriptions, the royalty was 0.50/image.  The artists thought that it was much better than SS' royalty.  Now, less than a year later, DT is changing the royalty to 0.25/image.  A 50% pay cut.

A second example is their implementation of Extended Licenses.  At first, they had a royalty of between $50 and $150.  Once again, something to appease the artist.  But now, DT plans on cutting that royalty to just $25.  A pay cut of between 50% and 600%!

A third example is their implementation of the Free images.  At first, the only had a Free Image of the Day.  Artists lined up to try to offer a free image because it would bring them some free marketing.  But now DT plans on opening up a whole Free Image Section that will have thousands of images for free that will compete against images for sale.  An infinite paycut!

Finally, as many of you have noticed in this thread.  They have awful reviewers that make up reasons for not accepting photos.  There have been many times that I have uploaded images and had them rejected.  I waited a week or so and reuploaded them (without ANY changes) and they were accepted.  I suggest that you all do the same.  They obviously don't have any sort of inspection standard and are just trying to reject a certain % of images so that they can all feel powerful.

Well, as they say, "every dog has his day" and their day is coming...

« Reply #41 on: January 19, 2007, 18:36 »
0
I agree in many aspects with StockManiac.  I hate the new 25c subscriptions earnings (and I asked for an option to allow us opt out, or at least do as some suggested and limit the size of the subscription downloads) and let's hope this will not be the trend!  But the new price structure however looks like subscription will look much more advantageous for a frequent buyer, so I am unsure. 

One thing that I find a bit irritating there (and in other forums like IS's) is that some members are all so happy about anything the site implements, greeting any kind of stupid idea like the 25c earnings and making a contrary opinion sound irrelevant. 

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #42 on: January 20, 2007, 06:39 »
0
My acceptance ratio got much better @ DT. But I also got much more careful which images I upload. And I only have batches of max 5 images. But mainly because I want images that sell better than the most I submitted first. There are a few which have not been dled for over a year.
I trust them with their business ideas. That is because I believe, they too want to make the most money out of the images. If they earn more, we will earn more too. I believe, they have a better overview how and to which prices to sell the images is the best. So I like the changes. This shows that they want to improve instead of sticking to the way it allways has been done. So we have an increase in prices for singele dls, but an decrease in prices of subscription dls. I like the increase, but also am curious how the subscription dls will work.
Everyone knows how well it works for SS. So why should it not improve the overall earnings?
They decreased the prices of the extended licenses a lot. I believe that is good too. Remember, they tried it out first. Apparently they made more money in that way, thats why they did it. If they made more money with the decreased extended license sales, that means the photographers in the average also made more money.   
I trust that they will stop the Free section, if it shows, that there will be less sales because of it.
But I think it wont be so.
There will allways be photographers who will complain if changes happen. But first of all you never can consider every opinion of every photographer. But changes are good. They might bring improvement. to do changes are sometimes risky. So I think we just have to wait. I do not believe at all my earnigns will decrease a lot at DT with its new price structure. But only time can tell.
I do not think the photographers opinions who are not happy with DT are irrelevant. I just think DT cannont consider all opinions otherwise they wont get anything done. And I do not make your opinion sound irrelevant madelaid. I understand you concern. That what you think was my first thought too. 25 c... that is not a lot. But maybe I do not think in the end as bad about it, because my 25cent/image earnings at SS make me about three times as much earnings (with less images) than I get at DT.
I have one image at SS which has in less than half a year 650 DLs.
My best seller at DT has 31 Dls and that is online about a year.


« Reply #43 on: January 20, 2007, 07:49 »
0
FreezingPics:

I respect your opinion, but I think there are some major differences in the subscription plan at SS and DT, and I don't think that you can compare the two.

1. A subscription at DT is $89.99/mth, and the buyer is allowed to download up to 10 images/day for a total of 300 images/mth.

A subscription at SS is $159/mth, and the buyer is allowed to download up to 25 images/day for a total of 750 images/mth.

The first thing that you might notice is that it will be a lot easier to download 10 images in a day than 25 images.  Thus, most subscribers will probably max out their downloads at DT, which means that there will be a lot of .25 royalties (which will cut into the higher-priced individual royalties).

2. If a user downloads all 300 images at DT, it will cost DT $75 in royalties.  Thus, DT will make ~ $15 at the least on the subscription.  So DT NEVER loses on a subscription, whereas the artist does.

If a user downloads all 750 images at SS, it will cost SS $187.50 in royalties.  Thus, SS will actually LOSE $28.50 at most on a subscription.

This shows that SS is relying on the fact that a subscriber will NOT download all 750 images, while DT is thinking that a subscriber might actually download all 300 images.

3. The break-even point for a buyer to consider a subscription on DT depends on the resolution size of the images that are purchased.

For example, if a buyer purchases 23 max-size images (> 8 MP) in a month, it would cost them $92, so it would behoove them to purchase a subscription.  Not only would they save a little money, but they would then be able to download another 177 max-size images at NO additional cost.  IMO, the decision-point is actually much lower.

For example, if a buyer was going to purchase 20 max-size images in a month, it would cost them $80.  But for an additional $10 more, they can download another 180 max-size images.  So I believe that anyone that is planning on purchasing 15 or more max-size images in a month will consider a subscription.  If this is true, then the artists will lose out tremendously (since 15 max-size images would payout a royalty of $30, whereas 15 images via subscriptions will only payout $3.75 in royalties).

4. I think that most people are assuming that the subscriptions at DT won't make much of an impact, because they are very seldom at this point.  But I think the new plan will be very popular.  It undercuts SS and will steal away many customers from that agency.  Personally, I think that SS is one of the best agencies out there.  They have the best customer service in the industry and they truly respect their artists.  For the most part, SS will accept any image that is technically good.  They let the buyers decide if an image will sell or not and they don't give you a rejection that states "not suitable for stock".  The only criteria that they seem to reject on is noise.  While this can be a pain at times, at least you know where they are coming from.  Most artists have no clue as to what the other agencies are looking for.

DT on the other hand is becoming a nasty agency.  They don't take their artists opinion into consideration (unless some of the big guns get together to complain) and they make implementations without interaction with their artistic community.  For example, take their "editorial" image implementation.  DT demanded that logos be removed from images and that identifiable people would need model releases.  Artists tried to notify them that a newsworthy image shouldn't be altered and that it goes against the very idea of photojournalism.  But did DT care?  Absolutely not.

Or take one of their implementations last year, where they raised prices but wanted to keep images online for a minimum of a year.  DT wouldn't have changed their policy if it weren't for some of the big guns threatening to remove their portfolios.  They then reduced the requirement to 6 months to appease everyone.  When people asked about what would happen if they wanted to go exclusive at some point with another agency, DT said that they would gladly comply and remove images for extenuating circumstances.  Well, that was a bold-faced lie.  There have been quite a few artists that have tried to remove their images for extenuating circumstances and DT has NOT complied.  They have forced artists to keep their images on DT against their own will.

Because of all of this, I would hate to see SS decline, while DT grows.

But that is just my opinion...

« Reply #44 on: January 21, 2007, 11:10 »
0
But maybe I do not think in the end as bad about it, because my 25cent/image earnings at SS make me about three times as much earnings (with less images) than I get at DT.
25c earning per dld is what keeps me away from SS (and Crestock is going the same way - I think I will soon leave it).

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #45 on: January 21, 2007, 16:40 »
0
I see abedailes point, but I would rather have ten downloads a week at 25 cents than no downloads at all.  Even at 25 C, most of the contributors I have seen on this forum earn the most with SS.  In the end of the month, I count the overall rather than per image earnings.  But everyone has their own approach to this...

« Reply #46 on: January 24, 2007, 12:59 »
0
My sales at  SS,  while only 25 cents,  are ripping past ALL the other sites. Even though I'm only getting a quarter a pop,  the volume of sales so much passes up all the others...  in the end, I'll be making the most  $$ from SS.  In my limited carreer, I've yet to have any EL sales... maybe I'll change my mind when/if that happens, but until then,  I can always count on SS for nice sales,  daily!  I tend to agree with roman,  when I'm getting a couple dozen sales a day out of a 200 +/- portfolio at SS,  and I'm getting ZERO sales of the same portfolio on others that pay more per sale....   I'm happy with the 25 cents per.

 Let me put it in the form of actual numbers. 
         I'm on 8 other microsites besides SS, some for 7 months now.
          ALL of my sales on the other 8 sites combined, DO NOT equal my $ sales on SS alone in only 4 1/2 months  And this month is coming on as my highest selling month with SS... 
         ...and it's the same portfolio on all of them,  3 of the others actually have a larger portfolio than I have on SS.
         
   
 I've noticed too that the longer I go, the smaller my rejection rate is with SS. I'm running better than 80% acceptance now.  I have no complaint with SS at this time.


MODIFY: same day.....   just goes to show you.. here I am only a few hours ago running my mouth about how I have a wonderful  80% acceptance rate at SS.... and this evening, my last batch of 32,  only 12 accepted.   Life goes on.  Hey, sales are still good there for me......  now watch, tomorrow, I'll sell zero...    ;)   EVERYday is an adventure!!    LOL
« Last Edit: January 24, 2007, 19:51 by TGT »

« Reply #47 on: December 27, 2011, 10:42 »
0
Especially these days, rejections are not stable. Even when they don't find a ''reasonable reason'' they say

 ''We are looking for images that exceed the technical quality and creativity of the images already online. Lighting and composition are very important in creating a good quality stock image that will have good chances to sell. This is a very well covered subject in our data base and the image does not exceed in quality, composition and technique images that we already have online.''

Even if you have texture photo. Come on, how come someone exceed the limits of a texture photo? Maybe, not taking texture photo.  ;D Or a crap texture?

Strange, someone may accept almost all of your photos, other one rejects all of them. It ain't a trustworthy attitude. Because you are either good or just suck! If you suck at photography, next time all of your photos can't be accepted. It shouldn't.

« Reply #48 on: December 27, 2011, 14:42 »
0
LOL the first post is from 2006!

RacePhoto

« Reply #49 on: December 28, 2011, 00:08 »
0
LOL the first post is from 2006!

If the person posting the delayed reply had only waited until January it would have been a full five year old "back from the dead topic". :)

It does point out how some things just don't change much?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
4022 Views
Last post June 16, 2006, 23:58
by Quevaal
19 Replies
8144 Views
Last post June 10, 2010, 13:24
by cascoly
18 Replies
9986 Views
Last post July 17, 2012, 08:11
by MarkRyanDesigns
3 Replies
2196 Views
Last post September 02, 2011, 05:34
by Carl
18 Replies
4173 Views
Last post August 02, 2013, 16:47
by tab62

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle