pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Dreamstime rejections  (Read 28320 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 20, 2006, 07:28 »
0
They have some new ones

Quote
The area occupied by the isolated subject is too small, and by cropping the resulting image is under 3 Megapixels


Fortunately I have an 8mp photo so they can crop that. Anyone else been having isolation woes at DT?

Quote
Your image info contains irrelevant description/ keywords/ categories, similar title and description, one-word description OR the information you entered contains misspellings. Read more: http://www.dreamstime.com/photography-article-3


They have had a rule that your title and description had to be different now the description must be at least 5 words.

I ran into trouble with some abseiling/rock climbing photos where they accepted just one as with the others they considered the people too darn small, though in that case I think they had thought they had enough of that subject.

Quote
This is a very well covered subject in our data base. We are looking for images that exceed the technical quality and creativity of the images already online. Please take a few minutes to browse through the best selling images online (on this subject) and go deeper, play, have a more creative, more personal approach to it, also keeping in mind the technical quality of the image.


So maybe best to check out the competition at DT before uploading


« Reply #1 on: September 20, 2006, 17:23 »
0
I get about 50% acceptance on DT, maybe around 70% on IS, and upwards of 95% on the other three.  I still send all five all of my photos that "I" think are worth selling.

Everything worth doing in life is difficult and then the rewards feel great.  A relative who is now a successful novelist took about ten years to get rolling in that profession.

Quevaal

  • Rust in Peace
« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2006, 10:38 »
0
So maybe best to check out the competition at DT before uploading
Don't bother.
If pics have been accepted at other sites, just upload and see what happens. Never try to understand how reviewers think.


Quevaal

  • Rust in Peace
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2006, 10:15 »
0
Just to elaborate:
4 of 5 of my best sellers at Istock has been rejected at DT. They may reject all they want, but things like that doesn't add weight to their decisions.


dbvirago

« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2006, 07:37 »
0
Recently, I have noticed that my approvals on most sites are rising from the 60-70% range to 80-100%. Assume I am getting better and/or more selective.

Except DT where my rate has dropped to under 50% with recent batches (same ones others are accepting) in the 0-20% range. One of the last batch, they didn't even give a reason. Only place i have less images now is Istock

« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2006, 08:15 »
0
Recently, I have noticed that my approvals on most sites are rising from the 60-70% range to 80-100%. Assume I am getting better and/or more selective.

Except DT where my rate has dropped to under 50% with recent batches (same ones others are accepting) in the 0-20% range. One of the last batch, they didn't even give a reason. Only place i have less images now is Istock

Actually, I'm picking up on the comments on the iStock thread about uploading problems which has begun to discuss the DT rejection rate. Yes, I've been noticing the trend to downward acceptance, and I've also noticed a seeming pattern. I usually upload in batches of 10 to 15 images twice a week. While my acceptance rate at my other sites remains around 85% - 100%, DT is rejecting whole batches or only accepting 1 or 2 from a batch. However, it seems that the next batch is accepted at 100%. Then with the next batch, the rejections occur. Then with the next batch, 100% acceptance. Seems strange to me.

Not to mention their annoying rejection comments; "please be more creative," "poor execution," etc. And the long preamble about how selective they are and the implication that they are the creme de la creme of the microstocks. :-\

Rant over.

P__

dbvirago

« Reply #6 on: October 04, 2006, 09:43 »
0
I had one of the 100% batches, but almost every time it is 20%. I upload in batches of 5. Every time I get emails from DT, I look to see which 'one' they picked. Recently, I sent 2 sets of aviation pix, planes, control tower, etc. One one batch, all but one said we have enough of these, but the 5th they took. Was it really uniqe? Was it the last one they ever take? Or did they spin the Wheel O Rejection and this one came up? I don't know. The other sites are all accepting at least 80% so I still get the exposure, but in the past, DT has been my number 1 earner.

If I was getting the same rejections across the board, then it's me and I have to fix it, but these shots range from 7-3 to 9-1 in favor of acceptance.

« Reply #7 on: October 04, 2006, 10:06 »
0
DT is getting very strict.  I am having issues but hopefully it will pass.

« Reply #8 on: October 04, 2006, 10:06 »
0
Are you uploading batches of similar images? If so try splitting them up and uploading them at different times.If I have similar images I don't upload the 2nd one until the first has been inspected.

dbvirago

« Reply #9 on: October 04, 2006, 10:18 »
0
Yes, I try to do that for the most part, but I was down to 2 sets, so there was more similar images. But the rejection rate has been going on for a while. DT has always been stricter than many, but my rate went from a steady 60% to 30% in August, the 20s in Sept., and is holding at a steady 20% this month.

Based on other sites, my skills are getting better, not worse. It doesn't really matter though. As has been stated on all these boards, the sites take what they want and leave the rest and there's not a lot that can be done about it.

« Reply #10 on: October 04, 2006, 10:56 »
0
...did they spin the Wheel O Rejection and this one came up?

The Wheel O' Rejection.  What a great term for the microstock industry.  That is hilarious. :D :D :D

Greg Boiarsky

« Reply #11 on: October 04, 2006, 11:40 »
0
My rate of rejection has actually gone down.  I think I'm getting better at knowing what to submit.

dbvirago

« Reply #12 on: October 04, 2006, 11:47 »
0
Yeah, that's my point. My rate of rejection is going down across the board as I get better and more selective. But my rate at DT is double to triple what it has been. If you mean knowing what to submit at DT vs what to submit at SS, etc., that's probably not going to happen. I submit in batches of five almost daily to all agencies.

Maybe if no one publishes an article on getting rich in microstock for a while, things will lossen up :-)

« Reply #13 on: October 04, 2006, 11:58 »
0
...did they spin the Wheel O Rejection and this one came up?

The Wheel O' Rejection.  What a great term for the microstock industry.  That is hilarious. :D :D :D

That is pretty good!  I win quite a bit!    ;D

« Reply #14 on: October 04, 2006, 12:22 »
+1

I never complained about rejections but last days have been unusual for me at dreamstime. First i thought that a reviewer had a bad day , but bad days are becoming usual. I had about 80% acceptance till now , but they rejected about 45 of the last 50 i submitted , so my rejections are 90% at the moment. Am i getting that much worse ?  Funny part is all the photos are few months old and it only coincidence that i submitted them now and i submitted that ones that were accepted then , same quality , same processing but backthen i had 80% acceptance now i have 90% rejections ....
Well , i will stop submitting for a while and see if  things will get better

« Reply #15 on: October 04, 2006, 15:26 »
0
I don't have too many rejections at DT.  iStock is the one I have trouble with, and usually the ones iS rejects are my best sellers on othersites.

« Reply #16 on: October 04, 2006, 15:37 »
0
My dt accectance ratio has gone up over the last few months.
Acceptance ratio:
November 2005 - 33.3%
December 2005 - 100% (only 3 uploads
January 2006 - 63%
February 2006 - 66.6%
March 2006 - 62.9%
April 2006 - 79.4%
May 2006 - 89.3%
June 2006 - 100%
July 2006 - 91.2%
August 2006 - 100%
September 2006 - 100%


I was thinking the opposite that it is getting easier to get approvals. I even had 3 approved today that I hadn't bothered putting up before as I didn't think they would get approved but thought I'd give it a go because of such a good approval rate lately. Maybe certain reveiwers are stricter, maybe some of the newer ones are taking their job rather seriously.

suwanneeredhead

  • O.I.D. Sufferer (Obsessive Illustration Disorder)
« Reply #17 on: October 26, 2006, 08:47 »
0

I never complained about rejections but last days have been unusual for me at dreamstime. First i thought that a reviewer had a bad day , but bad days are becoming usual. I had about 80% acceptance till now , but they rejected about 45 of the last 50 i submitted , so my rejections are 90% at the moment. Am i getting that much worse ?  Funny part is all the photos are few months old and it only coincidence that i submitted them now and i submitted that ones that were accepted then , same quality , same processing but backthen i had 80% acceptance now i have 90% rejections ....
Well , i will stop submitting for a while and see if  things will get better

Amen to that... today I have my WHOLE batch rejected for the same stinkin' reason, "This is a very well covered subject in our data base, yada yada yada."  These are some of the best images i have ever shot... and as I searched for "similar" images I never found any.  I think somebody's TIRED and needing to have a NAP over there... but I must say even with the high rejection rate I have... they are still one of my two top performers (with SS).

« Reply #18 on: October 26, 2006, 16:42 »
0
41% of my last batch to DT rejected for the same reason as well.   "This is a well-covered subject... blah blah blah... "   That's a change from my usual rejection, "too many on site now..."   Oh well, it's their site.  The other guys didn't feel that way, and some of those rejected sell there no problem.  If i can't sell it on DT, I'll sell it with the competition. No problemo.
         At least they are equal opportunity rejectors. Seems quite a few are getting the 'pink slip'.

eendicott

« Reply #19 on: November 16, 2006, 22:21 »
0
One thing about DT that is different about other sites (in my experience) is that they are willing to work with you on resubmissions.  I recently had a refusal for the too small reason.  I looked through the requirements and didn't see a clause about interpolation so I upsized the same image very carefully so that there was no loss in quality.  I resubmitted the image with the explanation of what I did to increase the "isolation size" and it was accepted - no questions asked.

One thing I've learned about them is despite their tough standards, if you get a refusal for something that can be fixed (image size, color profile, etc., etc.) then it may be worth your while to look at the image and change what they want changed.  It's gotten me a lot more acceptances on the site.

...and for those that  complain about your acceptance ratio, if you keep this in mind, a refusal and a re-work to an acceptance is an automatic 50% acceptance rate which for a lot of folks is a lot better than iStock these days.

dbvirago

« Reply #20 on: November 28, 2006, 08:46 »
0
First time I've ever argued about a rejection at DT. Had two rejections in this batch. One was an isolated ice cream sandwich, rejected for 'this is a well covered subject, ..." Puzzled, I did a search and couldn't find an ice cream sandwich, so I replied to the email saying that. Their answer:
"Hello,

Thank you for contacting us.
We have many image contected to food in our database, that includes a lot of
icecream images. Also your image is poorly lit and lacks composition.

Sincerely yours,
Ioana Grecu"

The first part sounds like total CYA BS. I don't agree with the 2nd, but if that was the reason, why didn't they say so?

2nd rejection was for a shot of towels in a retail store. Stacks of different colored towels fills the frame. This one was called towels3. Towels 1 and 2 were accepted. Only difference in shots is colors of towels. Their reason? This is not stock yadah yadah. But the others were? Didn't bother replying.






« Reply #21 on: November 28, 2006, 10:47 »
0
well i agree it is lame that they gave you a dud answer, especially when there is precious few images of ice cream sandwiches on the site (read one).

I do agree with the critique of the image however.

If a designer need an image of a sandwich he would probably want the corners of the bar.  You have just nipped off the corners, making it neither a full shot of the sandwich nor a closeup/detail.

the colors also seem rather off, as the ice cream is a dark yellow/brown, unless of course the ice cream isn't white in real life.  Take the image into photoshop or similar program and run the eye dropper over the ice cream.  in RGB color the numbers should be the same for R G and B  If they are not the same (for example R 180 G 180 B 180) or very similar you know the colors are not white.  If it looks white on your screen and the numbers are still wild, you need to get your screen calibrated.

I did a little mini edit and tried to correct the color a little.  I hope you don't mind.


I think the lighting on the ice cream could be a little stronger.  It looks like it is in the shadow.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2006, 10:50 by leaf »

dbvirago

« Reply #22 on: November 28, 2006, 13:09 »
0
Thanks, I'll take a look at the RGB settings. Agree it's not my best work - I was in a hurry to eat it :-). It's that the original rejection and the follow up were so lame. And the towel one was even worse. Oh well, moved on. Uploading today's batch.

« Reply #23 on: November 28, 2006, 13:25 »
0
well it is a good idea, and i would suggest trying a few more with ice cream sandwiches because really there is NONE on dreamstime,  i haven't checked the other sites but i don't image they have much more.  it might be a good money maker.

« Reply #24 on: November 28, 2006, 13:25 »
+1
good money maker...... er well was... before the 20 people reading this thread ran out to buy ice cream sandwiches in the middle of winter.

« 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?

« Reply #50 on: December 28, 2011, 05:12 »
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?

Yep, I was going to mention that. Nothing has changed, apparently.  :)

« Reply #51 on: February 17, 2012, 08:06 »
0
I have recently started doing illustrations and have had pretty much all of them accepted on the other stock sites, but dreamstime has rejected most due to 'distorted pixels' and 'not saved at highest quality' I then re-submitted them having dealt with the problem, and the first two were accepted, the next five rejected for same reason, and yet, I did the same to all of them, so how can it be acceptable for the first two but not for the next five. I also had rejection for too simplistic, not enough elements in image, which was a boat on sea in sunset with birds etc (illustration) and yet I see on the homepage latest uploads include images with just one item in the middle of a white background, dont understand how to please them  :-[

« Reply #52 on: February 17, 2012, 17:15 »
0
I hate to say it, but looks like the reviewing problems may be back at DT. They have a large backlog, and it looks like they may have hired one or more reviewers who don't know what they are doing.

Of my last five uploads I had two rejected for 'too simple' (Those images are not 'too simple' to make money, because they have been accepted at every site but DT and are already getting sales.)

I may suspend submitting to DT for a while (as I have done before) and wait for the insanity to end. I figure that on average I lose between $25 - $50 for every one of these bad rejections. Unfortunately for DT, they lose more than I do for these senseless rejections. Why they allow these spurts of bad-rejection madness I do not understand. :-\

« Reply #53 on: February 17, 2012, 17:22 »
0
not even top contributors have their respect, thats so cool (sarcastic of course)

« Reply #54 on: February 17, 2012, 17:49 »
0
I've had that "distorted pixels rejection" as well. In fact besides the "to many rejection" that is about the only reason i've had for rejections in some time. I'm not sure what the distorted pixels thing is however. When I check the jpg by opening it in Photoshop it is super clean even up to 600% zoom. Maybe someone can clear up what they mean and how to avoid it. It almost seems like they need to throw in an arbitrary rejection sometimes. I can't figure out the difference between the accepted ones and the rejected ones.

« Reply #55 on: February 17, 2012, 18:02 »
0
When you don't understand a rejection, send a polite email to support asking about that specific rejection.  On the few occasions that I've tried this, I have been extremely impressed with the responses I've gotten.  A lot can be learned about what is being looked for this way.

« Reply #56 on: February 17, 2012, 18:03 »
-1
When you don't understand a rejection, send a polite email to support asking about that specific rejection.  On the few occasions that I've tried this, I have been extremely impressed with the responses I've gotten.  A lot can be learned about what is being looked for this way.

seriously? DONT :)

« Reply #57 on: February 17, 2012, 20:57 »
0
not even top contributors have their respect, thats so cool (sarcastic of course)

Of course they don't.  Look at the spat that took place between Yuri and Serban for too similar rejections on Yuri's submissions.  From what I read in that thread, Serban prevailed. If that is actually hard evidence, it's not worth complaining about DT rejections because us "little people" won't win. :-\

« Reply #58 on: February 17, 2012, 22:33 »
0
not even top contributors have their respect, thats so cool (sarcastic of course)

Of course they don't.  Look at the spat that took place between Yuri and Serban for too similar rejections on Yuri's submissions.  From what I read in that thread, Serban prevailed. If that is actually hard evidence, it's not worth complaining about DT rejections because us "little people" won't win. :-\

right, no point in complaining a rejection (actually it "may" screw you), on the other hand never had a rejection from a resubmission at IS

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #59 on: February 23, 2012, 07:59 »
0
Ok here's some recent ones.

Quote
Too many photos/illustrations on the same subject or from the same series. Your submission should not duplicate content already in your portfolio or content which you plan to upload separately in the future (ie. collages based on your images). Please be more selective and choose only the best shots or illustrations. Avoid submitting simple variations on the same subject or duplicating content already in your portfolio (including from collages). You can create sets of similars (several shots included within the same image). That will help the file sell better and generate higher royalties via our level-based system.



Now what can be similar between a V-8 Vega, Plymouth Barracuda, Dodge Challenger and a Plymouth Duster?

Oh yeah that's right they are all cars DUH! (editorial)

And then today i get this.

Quote
- The image contains elements that might be protected by copyright/trademark (logos, brands, specific buildings etc.), can identify a property/product (letters, numbers), or could raise usage problems, therefore it doesn't qualify as a RF stock image. Analyze the photo closely and remove these elements if possible or try to obtain a property release. Read more: http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_148


On a 1957 farm tractor of which i have removed all copyright/trademark ID's the only thing left were what are know as "Block casting numbers" which in no way can be used to identify anything at all, all vehicles manufactured have "Block casting numbers" on the blocks and transmissions it only identifies the factory line which manufactured that piece for the vehicle.

Stupid rejections plain out stupid!

RacePhoto

« Reply #60 on: February 24, 2012, 02:31 »
0
Ok here's some recent ones.

Quote
Too many photos/illustrations on the same subject or from the same series. Your submission should not duplicate content already in your portfolio or content which you plan to upload separately in the future (ie. collages based on your images). Please be more selective and choose only the best shots or illustrations. Avoid submitting simple variations on the same subject or duplicating content already in your portfolio (including from collages). You can create sets of similars (several shots included within the same image). That will help the file sell better and generate higher royalties via our level-based system.



Now what can be similar between a V-8 Vega, Plymouth Barracuda, Dodge Challenger and a Plymouth Duster?

Oh yeah that's right they are all cars DUH! (editorial)

And then today i get this.

Quote
- The image contains elements that might be protected by copyright/trademark (logos, brands, specific buildings etc.), can identify a property/product (letters, numbers), or could raise usage problems, therefore it doesn't qualify as a RF stock image. Analyze the photo closely and remove these elements if possible or try to obtain a property release. Read more: http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_148


On a 1957 farm tractor of which i have removed all copyright/trademark ID's the only thing left were what are know as "Block casting numbers" which in no way can be used to identify anything at all, all vehicles manufactured have "Block casting numbers" on the blocks and transmissions it only identifies the factory line which manufactured that piece for the vehicle.

Stupid rejections plain out stupid!


You are perfectly correct. Let me point out, I try to avoid writing in topics where I don't belong or contribute any longer. DT would be one of those.

But when I left and closed my account, it was because to DT a Yellow Corvette is the same as a red Alfa Romeo. They are both cars and they are too similar. Done deal, they hire their reviewers from people raised by wolves in a cave in some mountains without television or magazines. Either that or people who have never been out of their small town in their life, until Internet came in via satellite. Whatever it is, there's little understanding that all cars are not the same. All "X" is not the same.

And although I'm small time, my best sellers from IS and SS at that time were rejected for "too many like this, they don't sell well." (same as FT which was the reason pulled the plug there as well.) I do that much and if they are going to be rejected for inventive reasons which are fabrications, then what's the use?

That's OK keep a positive outlook, FT and DT took things that IS and SS refused, and they never sold. So they don't have a clue either way.  ???

I like DT and the staff, but their reviews are done by aliens from space, pretending to be human born. That's about the only explanation I could come up with for the bizarre rejections for similars that had nothing in common past being a rectangle? LOL
 

« Reply #61 on: February 24, 2012, 03:37 »
0
Ok here's some recent ones.

Quote
Too many photos/illustrations on the same subject or from the same series. Your submission should not duplicate content already in your portfolio or content which you plan to upload separately in the future (ie. collages based on your images). Please be more selective and choose only the best shots or illustrations. Avoid submitting simple variations on the same subject or duplicating content already in your portfolio (including from collages). You can create sets of similars (several shots included within the same image). That will help the file sell better and generate higher royalties via our level-based system.



Now what can be similar between a V-8 Vega, Plymouth Barracuda, Dodge Challenger and a Plymouth Duster?

Oh yeah that's right they are all cars DUH! (editorial)

And then today i get this.

Quote
- The image contains elements that might be protected by copyright/trademark (logos, brands, specific buildings etc.), can identify a property/product (letters, numbers), or could raise usage problems, therefore it doesn't qualify as a RF stock image. Analyze the photo closely and remove these elements if possible or try to obtain a property release. Read more: http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_148


On a 1957 farm tractor of which i have removed all copyright/trademark ID's the only thing left were what are know as "Block casting numbers" which in no way can be used to identify anything at all, all vehicles manufactured have "Block casting numbers" on the blocks and transmissions it only identifies the factory line which manufactured that piece for the vehicle.

Stupid rejections plain out stupid!


You are perfectly correct. Let me point out, I try to avoid writing in topics where I don't belong or contribute any longer. DT would be one of those.

But when I left and closed my account, it was because to DT a Yellow Corvette is the same as a red Alfa Romeo. They are both cars and they are too similar. Done deal, they hire their reviewers from people raised by wolves in a cave in some mountains without television or magazines. Either that or people who have never been out of their small town in their life, until Internet came in via satellite. Whatever it is, there's little understanding that all cars are not the same. All "X" is not the same.

And although I'm small time, my best sellers from IS and SS at that time were rejected for "too many like this, they don't sell well." (same as FT which was the reason pulled the plug there as well.) I do that much and if they are going to be rejected for inventive reasons which are fabrications, then what's the use?

That's OK keep a positive outlook, FT and DT took things that IS and SS refused, and they never sold. So they don't have a clue either way.  ???

I like DT and the staff, but their reviews are done by aliens from space, pretending to be human born. That's about the only explanation I could come up with for the bizarre rejections for similars that had nothing in common past being a rectangle? LOL

I've seen a theory been mentioned a few times on msg that they have something to read and compare keywords of your recent submissions. So they could be finding similar keywords and rejecting on that basis. It's just a theory, but plausible because often the rejections do seem like the images have not even been looked at.

RacePhoto

« Reply #62 on: February 24, 2012, 03:57 »
0
I've seen a theory been mentioned a few times on msg that they have something to read and compare keywords of your recent submissions. So they could be finding similar keywords and rejecting on that basis. It's just a theory, but plausible because often the rejections do seem like the images have not even been looked at.

Ah back to the computers and bots doing reviews not humans? Or maybe people who don't speak English! Or perhaps some Coneheads. LOL
« Last Edit: February 24, 2012, 03:59 by RacePhoto »

Wim

« Reply #63 on: March 08, 2012, 11:23 »
0
DT is amongst the worst. From all the top tiers FT seems to favor my work the most, almost no rejections, at least not for ridiculous reasons.

« Reply #64 on: March 09, 2012, 17:57 »
0
It's definitely humans on DT although not so sure about FT - last rejection there was in November and that was because I included a transparancy mask as well as the isolated figure (which was accepted on it's own after). Since then there have been 1 or 2 accepted that even I would probably have rejected :)

lisafx

« Reply #65 on: March 09, 2012, 18:24 »
0
.

« Reply #66 on: March 09, 2012, 18:43 »
0
I think they're using the same reviewers as PDune...
atrocious rejection rates   ugh! :P

Noodles

« Reply #67 on: March 09, 2012, 20:22 »
0
I think they're using the same reviewers as PDune...
atrocious rejection rates   ugh! :P

err........  speaking of too close for comfort

« Reply #68 on: March 10, 2012, 13:15 »
0
It's definitely humans on DT although not so sure about FT - last rejection there was in November and that was because I included a transparancy mask as well as the isolated figure (which was accepted on it's own after). Since then there have been 1 or 2 accepted that even I would probably have rejected :)

I don't really make any effort with building my port up on ft. The first time I heard that ft reviews are not a human process, I did a very small test, which may or may not prove anything. I searched my port for an image with the lowest commercial value imaginable (I mean it was absolute rubbish), but which is perfect in quality, perfect lighting conditions, perfect exposure, contrast, colours, no noise whatsoever. I then sent it to ft, it was accepted (which I find unbelievable). I then sent it to a few other agencies (again still part of the test). Anyway, as I expected the image was rejected by the other agencies I sent it to and rightly so. Dt, "This is a very well covered subject.."; GL, "We are not interested in this image.."; Yaymicro, "Please improve composition/background/content". Yes it was even rejected by Yay!

It sits on ft with 2 views after several months and of course no sales. Why? Because it's rubbish. ft didn't even look at it (IMO), if they did they would have rejected it.

« Reply #69 on: March 10, 2012, 14:53 »
0
yes. DT review system is going to be one of the most weird review system or probably has already been so. Its not that my acceptance decreased there but there review is really shocking day by day. Really why dont they allow the buyers to decide what to buy or not if images are technically good. Someone has rightly said in the thread. The reviewers of DT are like frogs of well lol Rather allowing contributors to decide their genera DT should change genera of its Reviewers. lol

« Reply #70 on: March 11, 2012, 07:52 »
0
I don't share your experience. My worst agency is FT by far, 26 approved of more then 130 images submitted, in the same time, more then 100 of same images approved on SS, about 90 on DT and 70 on 123rf (still 30 pending)

IMO Alamy is much easier then FT.

« Reply #71 on: March 11, 2012, 08:05 »
0
I don't share your experience. My worst agency is FT by far, 26 approved of more then 130 images submitted, in the same time, more then 100 of same images approved on SS, about 90 on DT and 70 on 123rf (still 30 pending)

IMO Alamy is much easier then FT.
i am in similar boat like you but my boat is bit bigger than yours. Out of my latest 147 pix to FT only 24 were accepted while 70-90% from these pix have been accepted by other agencies.

« Reply #72 on: March 11, 2012, 09:01 »
0
yes. DT review system is going to be one of the most weird review system or probably has already been so. Its not that my acceptance decreased there but there review is really shocking day by day. Really why dont they allow the buyers to decide what to buy or not if images are technically good. Someone has rightly said in the thread. The reviewers of DT are like frogs of well lol Rather allowing contributors to decide their genera DT should change genera of its Reviewers. lol

DTs original explanation of too similar was pretty clear.  They showed examples of images that were of the same item but shot at various angles. That policy was obvious to me, the message being "don't send us more than one image of the same object".  Today this kind of rejection has morphed into "theme" too similar.  So one submits 5 or 6 completely different images with completely different props but similar themes and BLAMO....all but one rejected for too similar.  We are now being rejected for "themes too similar" as far as I am concerned.  I am surprised that Serbian hasn't addressed this more fairly and retrained their inspectors to get back to the basics of their original too similar logic.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2012, 17:32 by Mantis »

Paulo M. F. Pires

  • "No Gods No Masters"
« Reply #73 on: March 11, 2012, 15:43 »
0
I don't share your experience. My worst agency is FT by far, 26 approved of more then 130 images submitted, in the same time, more then 100 of same images approved on SS, about 90 on DT and 70 on 123rf (still 30 pending)

IMO Alamy is much easier then FT.

But Alamy don't evaluate "Commercial Value"...

Actually, as low earner, I'm not worried with rejection on FT, because I sale the old same files...

« Reply #74 on: March 12, 2012, 14:43 »
0
I don't share your experience. My worst agency is FT by far, 26 approved of more then 130 images submitted, in the same time, more then 100 of same images approved on SS, about 90 on DT and 70 on 123rf (still 30 pending)

IMO Alamy is much easier then FT.

i have another experience. my upload accepting in FT is around 40 percent ( 69 files submitted, 30 accepted - 8 in "free section", 22 fully accepted).
in DT is around 4.6 %  - 103 refused and 5 accepted. FT accepts some of files, who DT reject. DT not accepted files in "free" section from me at all!

that is my tale...

« Reply #75 on: March 13, 2012, 08:20 »
0
But Alamy don't evaluate "Commercial Value"...

Actually, as low earner, I'm not worried with rejection on FT, because I sale the old same files...

Agree about that, but almost half of my FT rejections are technical problems, and no other agency can see them (SS, DT, 123, Alamy....)

I believe it's because of photo style, not about any technical problem like CA, sharpness, noise... because I dont have them.

Wim

« Reply #76 on: March 14, 2012, 14:47 »
0
.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 15:04 by Wim »

« Reply #77 on: March 14, 2012, 15:10 »
0
.

Aw that's not fair, I was about to reply  :D

CD123

« Reply #78 on: March 14, 2012, 17:06 »
0
.

Aw that's not fair, I was about to reply  :D

I am sure you still can, with "@#$#@*% ..."  ;D

« Reply #79 on: March 14, 2012, 18:00 »
0
.

Aw that's not fair, I was about to reply  :D

I am sure you still can, with "@#$#@*% ..."  ;D

Anyway, without going in to the specifics, all I can say to Wim is try again in 6 months and space them.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 18:22 by Microstock Posts »

Wim

« Reply #80 on: March 15, 2012, 03:26 »
0
Ah, sorry guys.

Out of respect for Leaf I sometimes remove my comments. I always think we could put him in a bad spot with comments like this.

Anyway, I'm already fed up with it, I cannot go on like this. I think I will go Macrostock all the way pretty soon, they might not be the best/fastest earners but at least their reviewers are not corrupted (not just DT btw)

Respect to all of you who just take this and move on, I wish I could do it.

Wim


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
4027 Views
Last post June 16, 2006, 23:58
by Quevaal
19 Replies
8145 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
4181 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