Author Topic: Stupid Rejections (Read 14800 times)

fritz · « **on:** February 08, 2011, 20:20 »

Well 99.9% of my rejections are "Too many photos/illustrations on the same subject or from the same series" This drive me crazy.
I can understand rejected for noise, lighting... etc but this is nonsense

This was refused

and this was accepted

Thinking to give up and delete my port if it's keep going like this. I don't see any point to submit pictures anymore unless something change.

corepics · « **Reply #1 on:** February 08, 2011, 20:42 »

I know how frustrating this can be, and I'm by no means fan of their policy.

However, it's DT's prerogative to set their threshold of what to accept and what not, to their liking. In this case - from my point of view as occasional buyer - I'd buy only one anyway, even if I have use for both (or more) similars. The fix in photoshop to change "help" to "jobs" is pretty easy.

The images are cool, have a good concept, and commercial value, IMHO. Deleting a portfolio based on this seems like a rather harsh reaction.

The solution: Don't upload them in one batch if you want to get them all accepted, but mix them with other images.

The way DT works with their level based, tiered, system, you might sell more in quantity, but end up making less money, because the sales will be more spread over images with the same theme (help, jobs, targets, lean, or what else you'd put in the bulls eye), thus it'll take longer for an image to reach a next tier.

(ETA: punctuation)

luissantos84 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 08, 2011, 21:08 »

my opinion regarding DT, wanna have your work online? go exclusive!

visceralimage · « **Reply #3 on:** February 08, 2011, 21:17 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on February 08, 2011, 21:08

my opinion regarding DT, wanna have your work online? go exclusive!

Nonsense, I was DT exclusive. If I submitted an image of a wild animal from the front they would not accept the same animal is photographed from the rear, to similar. I have images with an animal jumping after food and another with the animal static; they would only accept one. The policy is bad; for exclusives and non-exclusives.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 08, 2011, 22:23 »

Quote from: visceralimage on February 08, 2011, 21:17

Quote from: luissantos84 on February 08, 2011, 21:08
my opinion regarding DT, wanna have your work online? go exclusive!

Nonsense, I was DT exclusive. If I submitted an image of a wild animal from the front they would not accept the same animal is photographed from the rear, to similar. I have images with an animal jumping after food and another with the animal static; they would only accept one. The policy is bad; for exclusives and non-exclusives.

from my private researches I found exclusives have a lot of advantage on DT.. but I understand that.. just like IS

Megastock · « **Reply #5 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:24 »

If there is an exclusive advantage for uploads, I'm sure not feeling the love this month

luissantos84 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:36 »

Quote from: Megastock on February 09, 2011, 11:24

If there is an exclusive advantage for uploads, I'm sure not feeling the love this month

Nice nick Brad

wish you more luck on the next reviews

RacePhoto · « **Reply #7 on:** February 09, 2011, 16:57 »

I like the second one better... and they are basically identical images, with a word that anyone can change. The second one has sharper focus on the red bulls-eye. (but they didn't say anything about that)

What I think is funny, is when I used to send things and the reviews would be something about cropping, point of focus, some little thing that could easily be fixed by someone half competent, then it was the need for ready to use images.

When someone sends in two good images with different meaning, ready to use, the response is, it can be easily edited. (hey didn't I just do that to you?)

I think the answer is just what others have said and some have done for years. Send in one, wait a month and send in the next. Stagger the similars in upload batches. PITA but more will get accepted.

hose · « **Reply #8 on:** February 12, 2011, 09:40 »

recently I got this one -

Please don\'t use that much blank space in pictures with isolated subjects (sample text messages don\'t count as content). Being an isolated subject, the buyers can add blank space as much as they need after downloading. For more informations visit this link http://blog.dreamstime.com/2010/09/08/whitespace-that-should-not-be-white_art33344 .Thank you.

Definitely this is the stupidest ever!!!

)

red · « **Reply #9 on:** February 12, 2011, 09:57 »

I don't see why you think that this is a stupid rejection reason. The article you quote says -

"White space...empty space that makes the file (look) big, but in reality only makes the designers pay more for nothing. If you isolate your shots, then you should crop tightly around it, making the image as big as actual information in the image and not more. It seriously is not fun to pay for XXL size, if the usable image in it is only worth Medium credits."

Makes sense to me, but I'm not seeing the image you are referring to that was rejected, how about displaying it here?

cathyslife · « **Reply #10 on:** February 12, 2011, 10:42 »

On this particular image, I agree with racephoto. The second is a wider shot, which buyers like. They can always crop closer with that one, if they choose. And the word could be changed easily enough, so having basically the same image with just word changes is a no-no. Now, if your second shot was from directly above and they rejected it, then I would say it was a stupid rejection.

hose · « **Reply #11 on:** February 12, 2011, 14:29 »

the explanation is stupid because it's impossible to shoot on a white background (or any other) and not to leave space - of course we are talking about normal shooting when the object is placed normaly - what they are talking about is something else - for extreme cases when the object is very very small....

RolMat · « **Reply #12 on:** February 12, 2011, 14:45 »

No, it is not. Excessive white/blank space will only increase artificially your image size, and thus become more expensive to customers w/o actually having any usable contents. Please crop your images in a reasonable way prior to your submissions. Hope this helps.

fritz · « **Reply #13 on:** February 12, 2011, 20:21 »

Ok. Maybe I gave bad samples. I agree.
What about this two.

Accepted

Refused

Are these two pictures similar? Well I can't find any other photo within my port
tagged with pollution apart from monitors.
Still, the second one was refused.That is what I was talking about.
The point is:
In most of the cases when iStock reject there must be reason Dreamstime reject without reason.
Anyway thank you all for your replies and your opinions.

pancaketom · « **Reply #14 on:** February 12, 2011, 21:07 »

Quote from: alexmk on February 12, 2011, 20:21

Ok. Maybe I gave bad samples. I agree.
What about this two.

Accepted

Refused

Are these two pictures similar? Well I can't find any other photo within my port
tagged with pollution apart from monitors.
Still, the second one was refused.That is what I was talking about.
The point is:
In most of the cases when iStock reject there must be reason Dreamstime reject without reason.

Anyway thank you all for your replies and your opinions.

would you prefer "artifacts" as the rejection reason?

Actually I quite agree with you that they reject too many similars of some stuff that isn't similar at all.

Above a few - I agree w/ the reviewer - too much white space on the side of the apple

RacePhoto · « **Reply #15 on:** February 12, 2011, 22:44 »

Quote from: pancaketom on February 12, 2011, 21:07

Above a few - I agree w/ the reviewer - too much white space on the side of the apple

That's what I was trying to say. There's no winning.

Some people want to buy a ready photo, like the example, with the apple and the copy space. Also it presents the subject in a way that would appeal to a buyer, more than a tiny apple with no white space to the right.

Then the agency wants it both ways, and will refuse for cropped too close or "too many like this" even though the presentation makes the apple photo more attractive?

hose · « **Reply #16 on:** February 13, 2011, 09:02 »

RacePhoto - absolutely

I think people should read a little bit more about composition...

you never know what the designer will need and want - but there is a very big chance to be more usable now
and if the object is displayed full size - this is the highest resolution possible - no matter if I crop the white on the right or not - the apple stays the same

rubyroo · « **Reply #17 on:** February 13, 2011, 09:15 »

Doesn't it also depend on whether the white is pure white or off-white?

My own logic is, if it's off-white, the copy space may be necessary if the image is to be used intact. If it's pure white, there's no need whatsoever to leave copy space, because the end-user can create as much pure white as they like - but they can't simulate the subtle gradations of off-white space so easily, and will be dependent on the space you've left for them.

I may be completely wrong here, but this has always seemed logical to me. I used my own acceptances and rejections to figure this out, and my own experience seems to validate the theory.

<sitting back to see my theory blown out of the water now...>

Mantis · « **Reply #18 on:** February 13, 2011, 09:37 »

Quote from: RolMat on February 12, 2011, 14:45

No, it is not. Excessive white/blank space will only increase artificially your image size, and thus become more expensive to customers w/o actually having any usable contents. Please crop your images in a reasonable way prior to your submissions. Hope this helps.

I just sent DT a ticket on one of my pending images because it violates their white space rules. But when I crop it the file size does not meet their minimum file size requirements to be accepted, so it gets kicked out of the editing queue. So I am in a quandary but am confident DT will give me the right advice or allow me to crop the image to a point where it is large enough to meet their size requirements but chips away at the excessive white space.

Mantis · « **Reply #19 on:** February 13, 2011, 09:47 »

Quote from: alexmk on February 08, 2011, 20:20

Well 99.9% of my rejections are "Too many photos/illustrations on the same subject or from the same series" This drive me crazy.
I can understand rejected for noise, lighting... etc but this is nonsense

This was refused

and this was accepted

Thinking to give up and delete my port if it's keep going like this. I don't see any point to submit pictures anymore unless something change.

One thing you might do is to send in only one image with the bulls eye solid red, then in your description put in text that explains how a designer might use this image. Add some keywords relative to the image use (assuming you can sneak "jobs", "work" etc by the inspectors. Make sure you use "copy space" in your keywords as well and also in your description since DT search uses image descriptions in addition to keywords.

RolMat · « **Reply #20 on:** February 13, 2011, 09:58 »

Quote

I just sent DT a ticket on one of my pending images because it violates their white space rules. But when I crop it the file size does not meet their minimum file size requirements to be accepted, so it gets kicked out of the editing queue. So I am in a quandary but am confident DT will give me the right advice or allow me to crop the image to a point where it is large enough to meet their size requirements but chips away at the excessive white space.

This is not exactly a rule but rather common sense for the reasons above, eg. no customer is willing to pay for an artificially oversized image. If your original image falls behind the minimum size requirements - 3Mpx - then I guess you need to produce bigger images. Increasing your image size artificially just doesn't make any sense at all, and most probably you will get your image rejected. It's up to you though.

fritz · « **Reply #21 on:** February 13, 2011, 11:49 »

Quote from: pancaketom on February 12, 2011, 21:07

Quote from: alexmk on February 12, 2011, 20:21
Ok. Maybe I gave bad samples. I agree.
What about this two.

Accepted

Refused

Are these two pictures similar? Well I can't find any other photo within my port
tagged with pollution apart from monitors.
Still, the second one was refused.That is what I was talking about.
The point is:
In most of the cases when iStock reject there must be reason Dreamstime reject without reason.

Anyway thank you all for your replies and your opinions.

would you prefer "artifacts" as the rejection reason?

Actually I quite agree with you that they reject too many similars of some stuff that isn't similar at all.

Above a few - I agree w/ the reviewer - too much white space on the side of the apple

Well lead pollution photo was already accepted by iIstock as you can see.
Do you think that iStock will approve photo with artifacts. They are very strict. No way.
That's not the reason.

Mantis · « **Reply #22 on:** February 14, 2011, 08:59 »

Quote from: RolMat on February 12, 2011, 14:45

No, it is not. Excessive white/blank space will only increase artificially your image size, and thus become more expensive to customers w/o actually having any usable contents. Please crop your images in a reasonable way prior to your submissions. Hope this helps.

Well, I am using a Nikon D700 10 mp full frame camera. I will crop it until it meets the min requirements, go from there.

Thanks

hose · « **Reply #23 on:** February 15, 2011, 06:58 »

Nikon D700 is 12 mp

Mantis · « **Reply #24 on:** February 16, 2011, 18:48 »

Quote from: RolMat on February 13, 2011, 09:58

Quote
I just sent DT a ticket on one of my pending images because it violates their white space rules. But when I crop it the file size does not meet their minimum file size requirements to be accepted, so it gets kicked out of the editing queue. So I am in a quandary but am confident DT will give me the right advice or allow me to crop the image to a point where it is large enough to meet their size requirements but chips away at the excessive white space.

This is not exactly a rule but rather common sense for the reasons above, eg. no customer is willing to pay for an artificially oversized image. If your original image falls behind the minimum size requirements - 3Mpx - then I guess you need to produce bigger images. Increasing your image size artificially just doesn't make any sense at all, and most probably you will get your image rejected. It's up to you though.

I understand this. What is your unwritten policy on offering the designer a vertical and a horizontal version of the same image?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Stupid Rejections (Read 14800 times)

fritz

corepics

luissantos84

visceralimage

luissantos84

Megastock

luissantos84

RacePhoto

hose

red

cathyslife

hose

RolMat

fritz

pancaketom

RacePhoto

hose

rubyroo

Mantis

Mantis

RolMat

fritz

Mantis

hose

Mantis

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors