Author Topic: what about that refused files reason????!! (Read 5957 times)

nile · « **on:** April 03, 2009, 07:18 »

Hi everybody

I've sent a lot of different images (persons, backgrounds, textures, signals, buildings, animals, nature...) and all of them were refused with ther same problem:

"This is a very well covered subject in our data base"

what about it?
they have enough images of everything?
I'm not original I guess...

epantha · « **Reply #1 on:** April 03, 2009, 07:47 »

All of my recent rejections have that same reason. They seem to have become more strict about what they accept lately. Also faster review time. I believe they hired some more reviewers? I am being very careful about what I upload now.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #2 on:** April 03, 2009, 07:54 »

I had few rejected files with the same reason lately. But my friend had this rejection for the image that had only 2 slightly similar images in DT database. I guess it's some new reviewer, and I hope this will change soon. I don't want my approval rate to drop too much.

batman · « **Reply #3 on:** April 03, 2009, 08:31 »

don't give up. they're a good site to belong to. probably the best .
if they reject your images, move on and submit different ones . it's just that they know those won't sell . their clientele is very specific, and once you get to know what they like , you will get the approval. chins up.

Jack Schiffer · « **Reply #4 on:** April 03, 2009, 08:46 »

Quote from: nile on April 03, 2009, 07:18

Hi everybody

I've sent a lot of different images (persons, backgrounds, textures, signals, buildings, animals, nature...) and all of them were refused with ther same problem:

"This is a very well covered subject in our data base"

what about it?
they have enough images of everything?
I'm not original I guess...

As An example I searched for soft boiled eggs result =318 images my photo was approved.
If I would have uploaded textures the result would be 30,290 images result = "This is a very well covered subject in our data base"

Always search for the photo Idea before uploading
My 2cents

tempura · « **Reply #5 on:** April 03, 2009, 09:06 »

Quote from: Jack Schiffer on April 03, 2009, 08:46

Quote from: nile on April 03, 2009, 07:18
Hi everybody

I've sent a lot of different images (persons, backgrounds, textures, signals, buildings, animals, nature...) and all of them were refused with ther same problem:

"This is a very well covered subject in our data base"

what about it?
they have enough images of everything?
I'm not original I guess...
As An example I searched for soft boiled eggs result =318 images my photo was approved.
If I would have uploaded textures the result would be 30,290 images result = "This is a very well covered subject in our data base"
Always search for the photo Idea before uploading
My 2cents

hmm you are probably right, but would it not be more accurate to compare food with textures?
try food against texture of a sunfloer seed against a green background covered with snow flakes

stockastic · « **Reply #6 on:** April 03, 2009, 09:08 »

Interesting to speculate on where this leads. At the rate images are being accepted by these sites, how long will it be until every distinguishable object on the face of the earth has been shot? At that point there will be nothing left to photograph but newly created things. Stock photographers will be standing in line outside stores where new products are about to be put on the shelves. We'll elbow past each other to buy them, race home to photograph and submit.

Somewhat more seriously, it is clear to me that the micros are trying to be more selective - rather suddenly, and in a big way. They've taken in way,way too much junk and buyers are no longer impressed by 8 million vs. 5 million images. If they want to compete on quality, that's fine but what should their strategy be to achieve that? Just dropping photos that haven't sold in 2 years while dialing up the standards for new photos is too simple. If you're rejecting new photos that are actually better than what you already have - and not deleting old photos that wouldn't meet the new criteria - how fast are things really improving?

nile · « **Reply #7 on:** April 03, 2009, 09:58 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 03, 2009, 09:08

Interesting to speculate on where this leads. At the rate images are being accepted by these sites, how long will it be until every distinguishable object on the face of the earth has been shot? At that point there will be nothing left to photograph but newly created things. Stock photographers will be standing in line outside stores where new products are about to be put on the shelves. We'll elbow past each other to buy them, race home to photograph and submit.

Somewhat more seriously it is clear to me that the micros are trying to be more selective - rather suddenty, and in a big way. They've taken in way,way too much junk and buyers are no longer impressed by 8 million vs. 5 million images. If they want to compete on quality, that's fine but what should their strategy be to achieve that? Just dropping photos that haven't sold in 2 years while dialing up the standards for new photos is too simple. If you're rejecting new photos that are actually better than what you already have - and not deleting old photos that wouldn't meet the new criteria - how fast are things really improving?

that's very interesting, stockastic.
I think they would do it. And I really don't care if they delete all my photos that have not been sold in 2 years.
great idea!

Jack Schiffer · « **Reply #8 on:** April 03, 2009, 10:06 »

Quote from: tempura on April 03, 2009, 09:06

Quote from: Jack Schiffer on April 03, 2009, 08:46
Quote from: nile on April 03, 2009, 07:18
Hi everybody

I've sent a lot of different images (persons, backgrounds, textures, signals, buildings, animals, nature...) and all of them were refused with ther same problem:

"This is a very well covered subject in our data base"

what about it?
they have enough images of everything?
I'm not original I guess...
As An example I searched for soft boiled eggs result =318 images my photo was approved.
If I would have uploaded textures the result would be 30,290 images result = "This is a very well covered subject in our data base"
Always search for the photo Idea before uploading
My 2cents
hmm you are probably right, but would it not be more accurate to compare food with textures?
try food against texture of a sunfloer seed against a green background covered with snow flakes

Sunflower seed texture 204 images would work well over food which has 453,992 images

Colette · « **Reply #9 on:** April 03, 2009, 10:23 »

But Istock and Shutterstock do have very big databases too, and they barely do rejections for that reason!
In my opinion they should do better to only raise the standards on quality and when they think they will become too big then remove old uploads of low quality that never had seen downloads. Rejecting new images of good quality seem to throw trees in a streaming river to me. It will block the stream and give less clear water.
But perhaps I am wrong about that. I don't have to run a stocksite!

stockastic · « **Reply #10 on:** April 03, 2009, 11:16 »

I think it's mostly a matter of labor costs. If a micro really wants to improve the quality of their existing archives , they'd have to hire, train and supervise competent people to look at millions of images and make decisions.

Microsotock started out as a get-rich-quick dot-com concept. Set up a web site and a database, and submitters will climb over each other to give you plenty of product for nothing in advance. Then sell it dirt-cheap. Conitnue until the market is saturated. After that - um, well no plan I guess. Other than search engines, they add no value to the product and as the effectiveness of their search engines declines, even that value is lost.

I don't want the microstocks to fail, I want them to re-invest some profits and make the business sustainable.

Magnum · « **Reply #11 on:** April 03, 2009, 11:18 »

Some reviewers are easy and some impossible. You are just unlucky to get the wrong reviewer at the wrong time.

I read once about a reviewer at Istock explaning how boring it was to review all bad pictures in between Yuri and the other top-players batches.

A normally nice looking car can look ridiculous between a Brand new Lamborgini or Ferarri. That´s how it is to have a human brain. It tend to get fed up

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: what about that refused files reason????!! (Read 5957 times)

nile

epantha

Dreamframer

batman

Jack Schiffer

tempura

stockastic

nile

Jack Schiffer

Colette

stockastic

Magnum

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors