Ok, I uploaded 6 images.
Shutterstock accepted 5 and rejected 1 image for poor quality, and Fotolia rejected the same 5 that Shutterstock accepted and accepted the same 1 image Shutterstock rejected, again for poor quality.
I know reviewers are human beings, but.... it seems some standards should be reviewed first. :)
Ok, I uploaded 6 images.
Shutterstock accepted 5 and rejected 1 image for poor quality, and Fotolia rejected the same 5 that Shutterstock accepted and accepted the same 1 image Shutterstock rejected, again for poor quality.
I know reviewers are human beings, but.... it seems some standards should be reviewed first. :)
Without seeing the images in question, it's hard to tell whether inspectors are crazy, or if the content is just borderline, easy to go either way.
I'd see as paradox that FT accepted anything at all. If they decided to accept 1 - it is almost 17% probability to hit one rejected by SS, so nothing extraordinary :)
I think, there was anecdote about Albert Einstein who was on some party unrecognized by a woman he was talking to. She said: "Everything is relative". He answered: Yes, madam, I also got a theory about it".I prefer the other Einstein quote, as an attractive young lady tries to flirt him at a party with "we should really marry; imagine our children, with my beauty and your brains"
Is it really possible that 6 images are so in borderline, that one agency accepts 5 and rejects 1, and the other agency rejects the same 5 and accept the only rejected image from the first agency? Theoretically it is possible, but practically....the probability is very low. I would accept this theory even if SS accepted all 6, and FT accepted only 1. I would just say that FT has much more strict rules. But my case is a paradox.
Is it really possible that 6 images are so in borderline, that one agency accepts 5 and rejects 1, and the other agency rejects the same 5 and accept the only rejected image from the first agency? Theoretically it is possible, but practically....the probability is very low. I would accept this theory even if SS accepted all 6, and FT accepted only 1. I would just say that FT has much more strict rules. But my case is a paradox.
It's not 'a paradox' at all. The fact that every single image was rejected by one agency or the other suggests strongly to me that your work is considered borderline.
If you've ever been a reviewer you would know that 95% of images are very easy to make a decision on because they are either very good or very bad. It's the other 5% that are tricky because you could make a decision either way. Your images may even be borderline on a number of issues such as technical quality, composition and saleability of subject and every agency will tend to be harsher or more relaxed on each issue. Individual photographers also tend to be fairly consistent in the quality that they produce too, mostly all very good, mostly all very bad or mostly all borderline. Being a reviewer can be a very educational experience, even for just a few weeks.
The truth is, if you submit technically good, well composed images with reasonable sales potential then you will hardly ever get any rejections. It's not a lottery and the reviewers aren't all idiots, it is 99% down to the contributor.
Hmm, let me see what math says.
If you have 6 borderline images, you got exactly 36 combinations for them to be accepted. Let me list you some combinations:
1. everything rejected
2. only first accepted
2. only second accepted
3. only third accepted....
...
10. first three accepted
11. 2,3,4 accepted...and so on
so, that's 36 combinations. Which means, there is a probability of 1/36=0.02777 to be accepted only one combination...which is my case.
That doesn't support your theory.
that is 2.77%
so, that's 36 combinations. Which means, there is a probability of 1/36=0.02777 to be accepted only one combination...which is my case.I hope you realize what probability math textbook blunder you made here. It's a nice one. ;)
Hmm, let me see what math says.
If you have 6 borderline images, you got exactly 36 combinations for them to be accepted. Let me list you some combinations:
1. everything rejected
2. only first accepted
2. only second accepted
3. only third accepted....
...
10. first three accepted
11. 2,3,4 accepted...and so on
so, that's 36 combinations. Which means, there is a probability of 1/36=0.02777 to be accepted only one combination...which is my case.
That doesn't support your theory.
that is 2.77%
I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with your maths theory which, by the way, happens to be incorrect. You're forgetting that each image (i.e. digit) has two possible options (approved/rejected) so the total number of combinations is actually 64. It's basic binary stuff;
[url]http://www.mathsisfun.com/binary-combinations.html[/url] ([url]http://www.mathsisfun.com/binary-combinations.html[/url])
Anyway, keep doing your maths if it helps maintain your delusion that's there's nothing wrong with your images ... and keep on getting the rejections ... and keep on starting threads like this saying how stupid the reviewers are ... and keep on ignoring any advice ...
It's not 'a paradox' at all. The fact that every single image was rejected by one agency or the other suggests strongly to me that your work is considered borderline.
...
Hmm, let me see what math says.
If you have 6 borderline images, you got exactly 36 combinations for them to be accepted. Let me list you some combinations:
1. everything rejected
2. only first accepted
2. only second accepted
3. only third accepted....
...
10. first three accepted
11. 2,3,4 accepted...and so on
so, that's 36 combinations. Which means, there is a probability of 1/36=0.02777 to be accepted only one combination...which is my case.
That doesn't support your theory.
that is 2.77%
I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with your maths theory which, by the way, happens to be incorrect. You're forgetting that each image (i.e. digit) has two possible options (approved/rejected) so the total number of combinations is actually 64. It's basic binary stuff;
[url]http://www.mathsisfun.com/binary-combinations.html[/url] ([url]http://www.mathsisfun.com/binary-combinations.html[/url])
Anyway, keep doing your maths if it helps maintain your delusion that's there's nothing wrong with your images ... and keep on getting the rejections ... and keep on starting threads like this saying how stupid the reviewers are ... and keep on ignoring any advice ...
If it's 64 than it's even less possible that they FT accepts exactly the same image that was rejected at SS. I actually never said reviewers are idiots. Those are your words that you try to put in my mouth, and you said it twice. Anyway, I am sorry I hurt your feelings. ;) Some reviewers are my friends and they know exactly what I'm talking about.
I don't know what's your problem gostwyck, but you should work on it. If I am your problem, just don't read my posts and don't comment. When everyone is talking about inconsistency in Fotolia's reviews, you are the only smart guy in this world who will attack me again (you already did it few times before) because I made a comment about it. You even put the word "idiot" in my mouth. Remember that your words talk only about you.
If you remember, long ago I asked you to stop attacking me. There is a nice "ignore" button, very convenient for guys like you who can't stand others, and you will never see my posts, so your days will be brighter. :) At least I will know that I made someone happy. :)
Also, if you like it so much, if you enjoy trying to bring me down, if ti makes you horny...or whatever, go for it! I won't press "ignore" button, you will know that I read your posts, and you will hopefully enjoy. So, your days will be brighter again.
I think this was my final word to you.
Have a nice evening!
Ivan
Is it really possible that 6 images are so in borderline, that one agency accepts 5 and rejects 1, and the other agency rejects the same 5 and accept the only rejected image from the first agency? Theoretically it is possible, but practically....the probability is very low. I would accept this theory even if SS accepted all 6, and FT accepted only 1. I would just say that FT has much more strict rules. But my case is a paradox.
It's not 'a paradox' at all. The fact that every single image was rejected by one agency or the other suggests strongly to me that your work is considered borderline.
If you've ever been a reviewer you would know that 95% of images are very easy to make a decision on because they are either very good or very bad. It's the other 5% that are tricky because you could make a decision either way. Your images may even be borderline on a number of issues such as technical quality, composition and saleability of subject and every agency will tend to be harsher or more relaxed on each issue.
Individual photographers also tend to be fairly consistent in the quality that they produce too, mostly all very good, mostly all very bad or mostly all borderline. Being a reviewer can be a very educational experience, even for just a few weeks.
The truth is, if you submit technically good, well composed images with reasonable sales potential then you will hardly ever get any rejections. It's not a lottery and the reviewers aren't all idiots, it is 99% down to the contributor.
You don't really see alot of those energy source windmills.
Yes, I'll give you that it may be 'stockworthy', but this looks like a snapshot to me - like you were driving along the highway, saw the turbines, stopped the car, and made a few camera clicks. Looking at it even closer leads me to think that because the turbines aren't all facing the same direction, some of them aren't working - not exactly ideal conditions, don't you think? The minimal effort put into this image is easily apparent, and given the number of almost identical images to this available, as a reviewer I'd have rejected it. Sorry to be so harshly critical, but in my eyes you don't have a leg to stand on by complaining that images like this are rejected. If you want to increase your income, you'll need to put in more effort than you've shown here.
It is already most popular image in my port, even tho its uploaded seveal days ago.You should really remove your portfolio links before making a statement like that ;)
It's of course accepted at IS, DT and all other sites I work with. And I am sure no one can say this is not stock worthy image.
You want to say that IS, SS and DT accept snapshots?
What about this image. This species of hummingbird is endangered.
It was rejected for: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality."
It is already most popular image in my port, even tho its uploaded seveal days ago.You should really remove your portfolio links before making a statement like that ;)It's of course accepted at IS, DT and all other sites I work with. And I am sure no one can say this is not stock worthy image.
I'd say it has an editorial stock worthiness but agree with sharply_done it has the appearance of a roadside grabshot which is fine for editorial,did you take any others from different perspectives/angles?
To be totally honest I'm surprised you had it accepted at iS and SS as RF without a property release DT however I'm not surprised about.
What about this image. This species of hummingbird is endangered.
It was rejected for: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality."
Looks like you used your pop up flash.
What about this image. This species of hummingbird is endangered.
It was rejected for: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality."
What about this image. This species of hummingbird is endangered.
It was rejected for: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality."
They should have also added that birds shot in captivity require a property release.
Just having a rare subject does not qualify an image as being a good stock image, it's shot sitting on it's perch in a cage using what looks like an on camera flash.
You should have captured it. I hear they're endangered, and likely very valuable!
What about this image. This species of hummingbird is endangered.
It was rejected for: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality."
My God...Who said it was in cage? :D It was outside, in the garden, totally free.
My God...Who said it was in cage? :D It was outside, in the garden, totally free.
Nobody said it was in a cage, but your shot certainly suggest that it is, there's no wildlife environment included in the shot and these birds are not known for their patience while a photographer walks around taking shots using a flash. If this was shot in the wild why did you use such a harsh flash setting?
What about this image. This species of hummingbird is endangered.
It was rejected for: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality."
Yes, I'd agree with that reviewer's sentiment, too.
The shot of the bird itself is fine, but the image as a whole needs work. If it was me I'd crop and rotate the image so that the bird was vertical with his beak pointing to the top left - this would give him a reason to be placed where he is. Next I'd get rid of the other branches and clone out the distracting spots on the remaining branch. As a finishing touch I'd make the sky light blue and use levels to make the branch a dark green, which would give the image a nicely strong graphical element. Here's what two minutes in Photoshop can do:([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/12148151/2/istockphoto_12148151-costa-s-hummingbird.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://www.strathdee.net/temp/slshummingbird.jpg[/url])
Nice work, but I think it's just a matter of taste. Someone could do it another way. I didn't want to touch-up sky, because it was cloudy, and IS sometimes doesn't like this kind of manipulating.
Nice work, but I think it's just a matter of taste. Someone could do it another way. I didn't want to touch-up sky, because it was cloudy, and IS sometimes doesn't like this kind of manipulating.
That is where you are wrong - it's not simply a matter of taste, it's a matter of understanding the commercial photography marketplace, and what differentiates a commercial image from a snapshot. Had we been there together and made this same shot, I can say with confidence that my (more commercial) version would outsell yours by a wide margin.
I'm not sure IS would accept the image with so green branch. It looks oversaturated, you must admit it
I'm not sure IS would accept the image with so green branch. It looks oversaturated, you must admit it
Gimme a break: I spent two minutes on it - a trivial amount of time and effort.
Look at the point I'm trying to make, not the image.
If you don't change the way you think about your imagery, you are dooming yourself to a low selling portfolio.
Is that what you really want?
... and that is just because they accept 10-20% of my images, and almost always images that are rejected elsewhere.
Where is the logic?
... and that is just because they accept 10-20% of my images, and almost always images that are rejected elsewhere.
Where is the logic?
As was said before, which I agreed with: if your imagery is commercially borderline (and from what I've seen, it is) then you should expect reviews to seem more whimsical. Instead of making images the same way and complaining about what you see as random rejections, I think you need to take a step back and examine what it is you are doing and how you are doing it.
You've been at this for two years. Where do you want to be in another two - still complaining about nonsensical rejections, or having learnt from your mistakes, making enough money to support a nice family lifestyle? A pretty simple choice, I think.
I want to learn from my mistakes of course, but the problem is I don't see the logic in FT rejections and I don't know what to improve when other agencies accept my images much more than FT. The only image that has good sales at FT is image of isolated ants. Second image has almost 6 times less sales. There is no way for me to predict even closely what will be accepted at FT, which is not the case with other agencies.
The shot was in wild. I have a witness for it. It was in Cactus garden in Palm Springs. The bird was on the branch, right in front of me, because hummingbird feeder was close. I didn't have my SB-800 with me. The bird was there for several seconds, so I made few shots, and the next moment it was gone.
The shot was in wild. I have a witness for it. It was in Cactus garden in Palm Springs. The bird was on the branch, right in front of me, because hummingbird feeder was close. I didn't have my SB-800 with me. The bird was there for several seconds, so I made few shots, and the next moment it was gone.
You're missing the point, the whole idea of wildlife photography is to take images of the subject in it's natural environment and make it look so, you can use flash but you need to do it in a way that it isn't obvious that flash was used, or of course there can be professional studio shots of wildlife done with professional lighting. Your images are neither of these and as such I can totally see where FT were coming from when they said it didn't reach their required level of aesthetic quality, it looks like a snapshot done in a zoo. A quick search on the web brings up many images of this bird ( a lot of them as public domain images) which are far superior to yours, so why do you think FT should take this shot.
Out of interest what lead you to believe this species is endangered, on all the sites I saw none of them mentioned anything about it being endangered, in fact quite the opposite.
I want to learn from my mistakes of course, but the problem is I don't see the logic in FT rejections and I don't know what to improve when other agencies accept my images much more than FT. The only image that has good sales at FT is image of isolated ants. Second image has almost 6 times less sales. There is no way for me to predict even closely what will be accepted at FT, which is not the case with other agencies.
If you can't understand rejections, then stop looking at them. Start looking at sales. What images of yours are selling? Why are they selling? Can you make more that will sell using these same themes/techniques/subjects?
Here's a starting point.
You've got an isolated shot of ants that sells well - that's great. Why aren't you doing something with it? The ants could be in single file, spiralling in on something. The ants could be arranged in rank and file, ready to invade. The ants could be spelling the words "ants". There could be a horde of smaller ants following a much larger "boss" ant. There could be a bunch of red ants with only one big black ant. There could be an imminent battle of black ants versus red ones.
There are so many possibilities to capitalize on, yet you are happy with only one image. You need to ask yourself why that is. This is what I mean when I say you need to take a step back.
Yes, I'd agree with that reviewer's sentiment, too.
The shot of the bird itself is fine, but the image as a whole needs work. If it was me I'd crop and rotate the image so that the bird was vertical with his beak pointing to the top left - this would give him a reason to be placed where he is. Next I'd get rid of the other branches and clone out the distracting spots on the remaining branch. As a finishing touch I'd make the sky light blue and use levels to make the branch a dark green, which would give the image a nicely strong graphical element. Here's what two minutes in Photoshop can do:([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/12148151/2/istockphoto_12148151-costa-s-hummingbird.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://www.strathdee.net/temp/slshummingbird.jpg[/url])
Nice work, but I think it's just a matter of taste. Someone could do it another way. I didn't want to touch-up sky, because it was cloudy, and IS sometimes doesn't like this kind of manipulating.
If you can't understand rejections, then stop looking at them. Start looking at sales. What images of yours are selling? Why are they selling? Can you make more that will sell using these same themes/techniques/subjects?
Here's a starting point.
You've got an isolated shot of ants that sells well - that's great. Why aren't you doing something with it? The ants could be in single file, spiralling in on something. The ants could be arranged in rank and file, ready to invade. The ants could be spelling the words "ants". There could be a horde of smaller ants following a much larger "boss" ant. There could be a bunch of red ants with only one big black ant. There could be an imminent battle of black ants versus red ones.
There are so many possibilities to capitalize on, yet you are happy with only one image. You need to ask yourself why that is. This is what I mean when I say you need to take a step back.
i personally would probably redo my photo like the one on the right also. but these two images also represent perfectly the style of is, the natural (left) and ss, the processed (right). since you're exclusive on is, sharply, i wonder why you don't veer towards the is style?
That is where you are wrong - it's not simply a matter of taste, it's a matter of understanding the commercial photography marketplace, and what differentiates a commercial image from a snapshot. Had we been there together and made this same shot, I can say with confidence that my (more commercial) version would outsell yours by a wide margin.
That is where you are wrong - it's not simply a matter of taste, it's a matter of understanding the commercial photography marketplace, and what differentiates a commercial image from a snapshot. Had we been there together and made this same shot, I can say with confidence that my (more commercial) version would outsell yours by a wide margin.
Agree completely - actually went BACK on the thread to find where someone (ends up being you) said this. The shot on the right, other than slightly oversat. is a WAY more commercial shot. Great stuff sharply
I can't believe you're still fixated on an image I spent less than two minutes with, and only to illustrate my point, which you've completely and utterly missed. I don't know whom I'm more angry with, you - for being so stubborn in your thinking, or myself - for wasting time and energy trying to help you out. On the bright side, at least I got something out of it: That'll be the last time I offer advice to someone who doesn't really want it.
Good luck, Whitechild, you need as much of it as you can get.
Thanks for laughing at me - I appreciate the honest recognition of my effort. You know, I used to hold out some potential for you - you always seemed earnest, forthright, and willing to learn. After today's interchange, I now see you're getting exactly what you deserve from this industry.
... First I improved, and then I started to stagnate...
... First I improved, and then I started to stagnate...
Yeah, that's what everyone does. I think it's a 'path of least resistance' thing.
One of the things that helps me is to divide my time into three distinctly different parts: making shots, processing images, and managing my portfolio. All three are very important, and I spend my time with them according to the mood I'm in. This helps me find the joy in each part of my job, and also adds a little variance in how I spend my days - the last thing I want this job to become is a job, if you know what I mean.
i personally would probably redo my photo like the one on the right also. but these two images also represent perfectly the style of is, the natural (left) and ss, the processed (right). since you're exclusive on is, sharply, i wonder why you don't veer towards the is style?
The only style I veer towards is the commercial style - a style that sells.