Author Topic: A review of Image reviews (Read 7454 times)

Gizeh · « **on:** March 14, 2008, 04:50 »

Hi there,

after a longer break I just submitted a larger batch of images to the usual suspects (IS,StockXpert,SS). Please find my impressions below. It would be interesting to hear your comments.

IS
The reviewers at IS seem to be the best trained. Often comments are valid and helpful. However there seems to be a pattern to also reject some of my very best images. Could it be that some reviewers have a hidden agenda and reject excellent images for protecting their own portfolios? Acceptance rate: 74 %

StockXpert
Comments very short but usually comprehensible. Good acceptance rate 80%.

SS
Comments mostly completely off and a catastrophic acceptance rate of 23 %. Will have to rethink if this is worth the effort, especially since I don't like their subscription-only business model.

Cheers
Gizeh

leszek · « **Reply #1 on:** March 14, 2008, 05:06 »

IS - I would not suspect the reviewers of ulterior motives - but again I am not submitting to IS yet (another 40 days before I am eligible for my 6th try

)

StockXpert - right on the money. They actually care to tell exactly why the image was rejected. I have very good acceptance rate recently and hardly any rejections - but the beginning it was the other way around.

SS - sometimes weird rejections, and hard to figure out why. OTOH - after initial submissions were mostly rejected - couple of last batches have been accepted 100%. While rejections may put you off at times - it can be hardly denied that SS knows what sells and how to sell, so I do not hold any grudges - but rather try to submit what I think SS likes. At any case - 85% of my (admittedly small) portfolio had sales on SS so far.

dbajurin · « **Reply #2 on:** March 14, 2008, 05:44 »

Well there is no problem with reviewers. In fact only problem is each agency business orientation. Every one of us taking different pictures and motives so beyond technical quality their is acceptance quota for each theme.

My ratios are in last 2 years (not counting first year when I skill myself in technical issues)

IS - 70%
SS - 99%
StockXpert - 40%
Fotolia - 50%
Dreamstime - 82%

So every one of us after we solve technical issues we need to know what kind of image they need and how much. You must now that sometimes because of business informations they don't tell you exact reason for rejection, they told most nearest reason for rejection. That is the same in all firms.

But sometimes you can do something about that reason of rejection. Use your imagination in naming images (that helps a lot at dreamstime and IS) and be specific and clear with useful informations in description (SS) and with fotolia don't upload same theme batches. Upload 2 by 2 images of the same location every week and you will have bigger acceptance.

Well that is from my experience.

Dario

sharpshot · « **Reply #3 on:** March 14, 2008, 06:02 »

Quote from: Gizeh on March 14, 2008, 04:50

IS
The reviewers at IS seem to be the best trained. Often comments are valid and helpful. However there seems to be a pattern to also reject some of my very best images. Could it be that some reviewers have a hidden agenda and reject excellent images for protecting their own portfolios? Acceptance rate: 74 %

I have read a few times that istock seem to reject images that sell very well on other sites. This happens to me as well. I do wonder what they are doing, it makes no sense to me at all.

leszek · « **Reply #4 on:** March 14, 2008, 07:02 »

"I have read a few times that istock seem to reject images that sell very well on other sites."

Could be. Different images sell differently on different sites. This is afct (although based exclusively on my personal observations - so I could be wrong).

Seren · « **Reply #5 on:** March 14, 2008, 07:27 »

IS- Best reviewers easily. Never had a rejection that I've had to dispute, when I get a rejection I go back and look, and can usually see the reason and then wonder why I missed it. I don't like the overfiltered reason though, because my new camera/lens combo seems to produce this one alot on landscapes with no post processing!

SS - Again, pretty good. Seem less picky about noise than IS. Usually what gets accepted will sell.

LO - Seems the strangest to me. They seem to reject images that are technically good, and accept images that are extremely borderline!

FT - I really dislike their rejection that blahs about "our clients use the pictures in magazines" because theoretically ANY picture could be used in a magazine.

fullvalue · « **Reply #6 on:** March 14, 2008, 11:39 »

Now that I shoot with a DSLR and have gotten better at Lightroom, I have a fairly consistent overall 80+ acceptance rate. SS hates noise. IS hates artifacts. DM sites composition or too many. Almost always what was rejected at one is accepted at the other two. I think their reviewers do a pretty good job and I like that if I really disagree with a rejection I can send it to Scout at IS.

I just recently started uploading to 123 and StockXpert so it's too soon to tell. I'm mostly uploading files which are already accepted elsewhere so I'm running in the high 90's.

Fotolio, on the other hand, I'm running a consistent 50%. As was mentioned if you upload a series they seem to reject a big chunk of it for being "the same." even if it's not. They also routinely reject files accepted at other sites. Their reviewers are very fast but I'm not impressed.

sharply_done · « **Reply #7 on:** March 14, 2008, 14:22 »

Quote from: fullvalue on March 14, 2008, 11:39

... and I like that if I really disagree with a rejection I can send it to Scout at IS.

You should avoid using Scout.

Image exposure on IS is highly tied to their Best Match (best match) ranking, which correlates closely to DLs/Day. Given that the Day part of this equation is the upload date and that Scout takes 30+ days to resolve things, your image will be added to the IS library with an abnormally low best match ranking, and it will have to be truly outstanding in order to advance upwards. That the image didn't originally "make the cut" may mean that it is not strong enough to do this. A better alternative is to rework the image a bit and resubmit it.

madelaide · « **Reply #8 on:** March 14, 2008, 17:55 »

Except for the "we're not looking for this type of image" (which is totally uncomprehensible to me when I submit illustrations, I never know what to expect), I find StockXpert reviews very reasonable. If they say there is something technically wrong, they're right. That's why I upload there first.

IS has some reasonable rejections, but some are just paranoia. I also see strong images rejected and some I doubted they would accept being accepted.

I've been leaving DT for last because of the need to keep acceptance high. My frustrations there are flower images, which they reject a lot (even some that sell well anywhere, including IS). They also have a very special attention to lighting, so almost anything that is lacking a bit, they reject.

FT, BigStock, FP, LO, 123RF accept almost everything, with FT and 123RF being a bit picky about similars. I haven't uploaded to CanStockPhoto lately, but they also used to have very loose standards (too loose, I might add, and that's probably why people are shocked now). CS standards lowered a bit and my latest submissions there (New Year images back in December) were accepted.

Regards,
Adelaide

vonkara · « **Reply #9 on:** March 14, 2008, 19:21 »

Quote from: madelaide on March 14, 2008, 17:55

I've been leaving DT for last because of the need to keep acceptance high.

I think they are shooting in their feet a little. Contributers have advantage to stop uploading when they reach what they think to be a good acceptance ratio and that's not completely in favor of DT. But as the sales are coming there, I say myself that it's not going to change anything and I have an acceptance of about 61% actually.

Karimala · « **Reply #10 on:** March 15, 2008, 05:42 »

Quote from: sharpshot on March 14, 2008, 06:02

Quote from: Gizeh on March 14, 2008, 04:50
IS
The reviewers at IS seem to be the best trained. Often comments are valid and helpful. However there seems to be a pattern to also reject some of my very best images. Could it be that some reviewers have a hidden agenda and reject excellent images for protecting their own portfolios? Acceptance rate: 74 %

I have read a few times that istock seem to reject images that sell very well on other sites. This happens to me as well. I do wonder what they are doing, it makes no sense to me at all.

The thing I love about IS is 99% of the time they accept photos that SS rejects. Usually my more creative photos. Whenever I have a problem getting something accepted at SS that I know for sure is a top notch shot, I always send it to IS right away. Four out of my 10 photos that have reached flame status at IS were originally rejected by SS...not just once, but multiple times each. And one of those even got me my first contracted photo shoot!

Seren · « **Reply #11 on:** March 15, 2008, 05:47 »

Quote from: madelaide on March 14, 2008, 17:55

I've been leaving DT for last because of the need to keep acceptance high.

Why's that? My acceptance rate at DT is crappy, because that's one of the first places I started submitting to nearly two years ago, and got most of my early stuff rejected...

lisafx · « **Reply #12 on:** March 15, 2008, 10:11 »

Acceptance ratio figures significantly in DT's default search.

vonkara · « **Reply #13 on:** March 15, 2008, 12:01 »

And more you have pictures more it's difficult to gain a better approval ratio. FT seem to be working whit the overall ranking as I see. The more fair agency for me is Istock as even whit a not so good acceptance or you are new and don't have a much bigger folio ,if a designer find your file good it gain in best match quickly

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: A review of Image reviews (Read 7454 times)

Gizeh

leszek

dbajurin

sharpshot

leszek

Seren

fullvalue

sharply_done

madelaide

vonkara

Karimala

Seren

lisafx

vonkara

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors