MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Haha, I am not sure anymore what actually means "poor quality"?? :D  (Read 23807 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 26, 2010, 17:56 »
0
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. :)
« Last Edit: February 26, 2010, 17:58 by Whitechild »


donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2010, 17:59 »
0
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. :)

Thats the problem I have with Fotolia. They always reject the ones that all the other's accept and accept the ones they reject. No wonder I don't do any good there..

« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2010, 17:59 »
0
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. :)

Deja Vu my friend, veery often!

« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2010, 18:06 »
0
:) Yes, donding, the same with me. And yes borg...but I think I never had such drastic example.

lisafx

« Reply #4 on: February 26, 2010, 19:05 »
0
That is hilarious.  I have never had such a blatant example of reviewing inconsistency between sites. 

At least you got a laugh out of it :D

« Reply #5 on: February 26, 2010, 19:26 »
0
Yes Lisa, exactly. I mean, What are we doing here? What is a good quality photo? Everything is loosing sense. I don't know if any of you saw the experiment with art critics and paintings painted by elephants?
Actually, elephants are trained to take a brush, to dip it in the paint, and to paint on a canvas. Later, two groups of art critics are called to review the art pieces made by elephants. First group of critics was told that paintings are made by elephants, and second group was told that paintings are maid by well known abstract artist. Everyone in the first group agreed that paintings have no artistic value, and said that paintings are just random blotches of color without any sense. But critics in the second group saw lots of "emotions" in these paintings, lots of anger and fear...and they agreed that images are excellent works of art.

I think it shouldn't be so hard to say which photograph is really poor quality, and which is not. At least, this should be easy for stock photography. There should be some real rules about technical quality of the photo. Or, if there are such rules, they should be followed by reviewers...or some reviewers should be checked from time to time from someone who really knows the job.
We are uploading lots and lots of images, to see literally random rejections. No one can make even a close prediction what will actually be accepted, and what not. Problems with 123RF rejection type "poor lighting/composition" made me stop uploading there. I simply don't want to loose my time uploading when I have last 4 batches rejected for the same reason, like I don't know how to adjust lighting.
 

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #6 on: February 26, 2010, 19:45 »
0
I have never been able to figure out what exactly Fotolia wants. Just when I think I have, I am proved wrong again. As for 123RF....I think the only word in their vocabulary is "poor lighting/composition"

« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2010, 21:23 »
0
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.

« Reply #8 on: February 26, 2010, 22:15 »
0
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.

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. 

« Reply #9 on: February 26, 2010, 22:23 »
0
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 :)

« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2010, 22:25 »
0
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 :)

This theory is more acceptable.

« Reply #11 on: February 26, 2010, 23:29 »
0
I've had that happen too, the inconsistencies drive me crazy, had about 10 rejected on yay for please improve image editing, 15 other sites including FT and IS accepted them without an issue? same with veer for 'awkward pose' ? or dated.

got a new machine this week at work, came with a range of backgrounds (not sure if standard for microsoft or dell) but looking through, I went look at this noise in that, and that, blown highlights etc etc.  I would have rejected half a dozen of them :)

 

« Reply #12 on: February 27, 2010, 00:34 »
0
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".

« Reply #13 on: February 27, 2010, 03:42 »
0
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"
Where Einstein allegedly said "I'd rather not; imagine our children with your brains and my beauty".

« Reply #14 on: February 27, 2010, 08:48 »
0
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.

« Reply #15 on: February 27, 2010, 15:03 »
0
There is no good or bad quality... Either you have the shot or you don't... Buyers are those who buy... Reviewers should know what they are doing regarding sales and demand... Nothing else!

« Reply #16 on: February 27, 2010, 17:02 »
0
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% 

« Reply #17 on: February 27, 2010, 18:29 »
0

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;

http://www.mathsisfun.com/binary-combinations.html

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 ...

« Reply #18 on: February 27, 2010, 18:33 »
0
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.  ;)

« Reply #19 on: February 27, 2010, 19:59 »
0

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;

http://www.mathsisfun.com/binary-combinations.html

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

« Reply #20 on: February 27, 2010, 20:29 »
0
.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2010, 04:41 by gostwyck »

« Reply #21 on: February 28, 2010, 00:56 »
0
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.
...

I can agree with that - seems pretty straightforward to me, too.

If it's any consolation, I'm also one of those that has regular brushes with "borderline" images. Sometimes things work out in my favour, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes those marginal images sell, and sometimes they don't. It's a challenge to make them, though, and lot of fun, too!

« Reply #22 on: February 28, 2010, 17:28 »
0

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;

http://www.mathsisfun.com/binary-combinations.html

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


way to go, nice!

« Reply #23 on: March 01, 2010, 04:46 »
0
IS apparently don't think these images are poor quality, which is much more important to me... :)

« Reply #24 on: March 01, 2010, 05:05 »
0
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.

Nice post, I would agree with you on this one 99% of the time. Occasionally you will get a lazy or new reviewer who does make mistakes.

« Reply #25 on: March 01, 2010, 13:00 »
0
I know how it's like to be reviewer, so I know that if you look at images 100% you can't make such mistake. This is one of images that was rejected at FT. It is already most popular image in my port, even tho its uploaded seveal days ago. 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.






donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #26 on: March 01, 2010, 14:03 »
0
In my opinion I would assume those would be very good stock simply because of all the concerns with global warming. You don't really see alot of those energy source windmills. Don't quite understand where they were coming from on that one.

« Reply #27 on: March 01, 2010, 14:24 »
0
You don't really see alot of those energy source windmills.

They are all around the place wherever I travel. Very easy to shoot. Well covered subject (hey, but what is not...;]). You can certainly see a lot of those.

« Reply #28 on: March 01, 2010, 14:33 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 14:42 by sharply_done »

« Reply #29 on: March 01, 2010, 14:57 »
0
That one is a stock worthy shot (agree with Sharply, it could have been much better) but FT would have rejected it for lack of a property release. It is something that they are very particular about, especially when you are showing the entire plant which makes it easily identifiable. If you obtain a property release it will be accepted. Had you shot the rotor blades only, without the context of the plant, then that would probably have been accepted.

« Reply #30 on: March 01, 2010, 15:32 »
0
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.

You want to say that IS, SS and DT accept snapshots?

« Reply #31 on: March 01, 2010, 15:41 »
0
The rejection was:
The image contains one or more technical problems:


    * Blurry or out of focus
    * Over/Under exposure
    * Framing problem
    * Over or under saturated colors
    * Problems with contrast
    * Noise or Pixelation
    * Quality of routing
    * Interpolation problem

Obviously some FT reviewers don't know that far objects can be slightly distorted because of warm air rising from the ground, and that this natural phenomenon can't be avoided even if the day is cold if there is a mix of clouds and sun. As we see here, IS, DT and SS reviewers know that. Find me someone who doesn't trust more to IS reviewers that to FT reviewers.

« Reply #32 on: March 01, 2010, 15:45 »
0
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."




RT


« Reply #33 on: March 01, 2010, 15:48 »
0
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.

« Reply #34 on: March 01, 2010, 15:49 »
0
You want to say that IS, SS and DT accept snapshots?

Yes, I'd say most agencies accept (what I would call) snapshots.
As you well know, just because they're accepted doesn't mean they'll sell, and selling is the name of the game. I know you'll probably come back with something like "I've already made $10 with this", but I'll be surprised if this image earns much more. Count yourself lucky if it does.

« Reply #35 on: March 01, 2010, 15:51 »
0
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.

« Reply #36 on: March 01, 2010, 15:51 »
0
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.

Ok, today it's second popular after dinosaur footprint (which was also rejected by FT :), and accepted by IS, SS...

« Reply #37 on: March 01, 2010, 15:54 »
0
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.

Of course I did. You can't expect a hummingbird to pose for you when you see one standing in the front of you once in several months, especially if it's endangered species. This image was made totally by surprise, and it's worthiness is ecological.

« Reply #38 on: March 01, 2010, 15:56 »
0
There is another ugly image that Ft rejected




RT


« Reply #39 on: March 01, 2010, 15:56 »
0
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.

« Reply #40 on: March 01, 2010, 15:58 »
0
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.

My God...Who said it was in cage? :D It was outside, in the garden, totally free.

« Reply #41 on: March 01, 2010, 16:00 »
0
You should have captured it.  I hear they're endangered, and likely very valuable!

« Reply #42 on: March 01, 2010, 16:07 »
0
You should have captured it.  I hear they're endangered, and likely very valuable!

:D lol
No, I adore birds.
I raised few crows, one eagle, one awl, one dove and few sparrows when I was a kid, but I let them fly away when they grew enough.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 16:13 by Whitechild »

« Reply #43 on: March 01, 2010, 16:13 »
0
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:
« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 16:20 by sharply_done »

RT


« Reply #44 on: March 01, 2010, 16:14 »
0
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?

« Reply #45 on: March 01, 2010, 16:20 »
0
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?

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.

« Reply #46 on: March 01, 2010, 16:23 »
0
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:


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.

« Reply #47 on: March 01, 2010, 16:28 »
0
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.

« Reply #48 on: March 01, 2010, 16:32 »
0
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

« Reply #49 on: March 01, 2010, 16:37 »
0
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?

« Reply #50 on: March 01, 2010, 16:58 »
0
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?


Of course I don't want that. I am just saying that all this isn't really the reason for rejection, because if it was, most agencies would reject those images. I know what is retouching and I do it a lot. You can see it here, but when there are so many threads about FT random nonsense rejections, few people who sell nice there can't prove me that my images are ugly because FT doesn't like them. All those images rejected at FT are sold on other agencies. But because of lots of rejections, I sold almost 10 times less on FT than on SS. So, obviously I'm the one who is at loss, but the one who is also at loss (even more) is FT...all because of few weird reviewers who can't distinguish good images from poor ones just because they see thousands of images of similar subjects. No one can prove me it's normal that FT, which is among big 6, earns me some 4% of total. That is not normal, and that is just because they accept 10-20% of my images, and almost always images that are rejected elsewhere.
Where is the logic?



« Reply #51 on: March 01, 2010, 17:15 »
0
... 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.

« Reply #52 on: March 01, 2010, 17:22 »
0
... 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.

KB

« Reply #53 on: March 01, 2010, 17:43 »
0
I think you both have valid points.

As an example of the randomness of FT reviews, my now best-selling image there took 3 attempts before getting approved. It sells double digit quantities every month, and is the 1st image returned in a search using its most obvious keywords. (I suspect those 2 points are related. ;D ) Yet it was initially rejected for "Type of photo" and then "Quality of photo".

« Reply #54 on: March 01, 2010, 17:43 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 17:49 by sharply_done »

RT


« Reply #55 on: March 01, 2010, 17:43 »
0
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.

« Reply #56 on: March 01, 2010, 17:57 »
0
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.

Erm..I read it's endangered on some website about hummingbirds, where I found info about this bird. I didn't want to add any wildlife background because this way is easier for designers to isolate it if they want.

« Reply #57 on: March 01, 2010, 18:00 »
0
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.

Honestly, I got several rejections for similarity at FT. That happened with most of my parachute images, even tho all images are different. That's why I didn't want to experiment with various shots of ants.

ap

« Reply #58 on: March 01, 2010, 18:05 »
0

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:


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.


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?

« Reply #59 on: March 01, 2010, 18:30 »
0

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.

The main subject aside... I think that's good general advice sharply_done.

« Reply #60 on: March 01, 2010, 19:59 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 20:04 by sharply_done »

« Reply #61 on: March 01, 2010, 20:24 »
0
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

« Reply #62 on: March 01, 2010, 21:23 »
0
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

The only problem is I am sure the image on the right would be rejected at IS

« Reply #63 on: March 02, 2010, 00:11 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2010, 00:14 by sharply_done »

« Reply #64 on: March 02, 2010, 00:51 »
0
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.

:D

Sorry Sharply. I got the point of course, but I guess I'm having hard day. Sometimes I am a jerk, I admit. Thank you for your advices and I agree with you. Don't be angry! Just keep giving good advices to people. I really mean that. :)
« Last Edit: March 02, 2010, 00:55 by Whitechild »

« Reply #65 on: March 02, 2010, 01:00 »
0
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.

« Reply #66 on: March 02, 2010, 01:29 »
0
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.

Sorry again. I didn't laugh at you. I guess I just cooled down, and I realized this thread is going nowhere, and I realized I was too stubborn. If you are willing after one angry thread of me to kick me to hell, ok. I can understand that. But you must admit that in most times I'm among people who are cooling down "too hot" threads. So, I hope you guys will find a way to forgive me that I was the one who pushed your buttons this time.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2010, 01:36 by Whitechild »

« Reply #67 on: March 03, 2010, 20:14 »
0
 sorry... double posted again...   Leaf... sorry dude..
« Last Edit: March 03, 2010, 20:18 by a.k.a.-tom »

« Reply #68 on: March 03, 2010, 20:17 »
0

wow................       glad to see it ended on a happy note!!  .....

whitechild...   I learned a long time ago...  "it is what it is...."    you're going to disagree with some rejections and... surprisingly, find you have to agree with some others. It's a fact. I've uploaded my share of pix that got shot down and low & behold,  the reviewer was right.  Ya learn, ya move on.

On the other hand... I do not agree with a blanket charge that when there is a varying of acceptance between different agencies that this means your work is a big lump of non-commercialbility (is that a word?, it is now :)). However, I have not looked at your entire 'port.
      I have been in the biz for years now and have made 'a few' bucks at it and microstock has been a very lucrative springboard for me into free lance magazine/book/publishing  work.  All that considered,  just last week I had images shot down as being  'snapshots'...    Well, to that reviewer, they were.   To reviewers at IS,  they weren't and they are already selling.  I have seen plenty of work not my own,  that should never have been shot down. The reviewer must have been smoking the funny weed...    but that's the nature of this biz.
My point..   it's not worth the bad vibes to dwell on it.   My motto is..   Photographs are like nachos.. I can always make more.  

On the final hand...  I agree with Sharply Done in the couple points he made about your images...  Personally,  I have found the man's advice to be more helpful than not by a large margin. Fact is, I don't recall ever disagreeing with his tech opinions. They are usually right on.  If you can take existing pix in your port and tweek them to a more commercial look,  why not do it?
And...  as you see the results of those efforts,  next time in the field..  take a bit more time and try to pull a better image out of the cam.

One other thing about this biz... is profitability vs productivity.     The more you pull sellable (i'm coining words all over the place) out of the cam and reduce post work, the more profit you make.

SharplyDone... great advice! 8)=tom

There is a lot of good help to be found from some very successful 'Togs here on MSG.  (and I am not including myself in that group)

« Reply #69 on: March 03, 2010, 22:38 »
0
Thanks, a.k.a.-tom!

« Reply #70 on: March 04, 2010, 00:30 »
0
Yes...I'm gonna try harder in future. Lately I just upload without putting so much effort in making really good image. First I improved, and then I started to stagnate...

« Reply #71 on: March 04, 2010, 02:46 »
0
... 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.

« Reply #72 on: March 04, 2010, 17:48 »
0
... 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.

Yes, I know exactly what you mean.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #73 on: March 04, 2010, 21:34 »
0
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.

Bingo

« Reply #74 on: April 05, 2010, 16:50 »
0
It is no big deal at all...

If you get something like "Soft or lacking definition" then you should scratch your head... Especially when you uploaded very large batch as I did.

Nevertheless those reviewers was right on it 100%

;-)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
47 Replies
19485 Views
Last post February 04, 2009, 10:54
by Lcjtripod
9 Replies
6311 Views
Last post March 22, 2011, 13:12
by donding
8 Replies
4416 Views
Last post July 29, 2012, 08:00
by OM
6 Replies
2472 Views
Last post August 28, 2014, 11:00
by Ploink
9 Replies
3016 Views
Last post March 15, 2015, 16:42
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle