Author Topic: Haha, I am not sure anymore what actually means "poor quality"?? :D (Read 29653 times)

Dreamframer · « **on:** February 26, 2010, 17:56 »

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.

donding · « **Reply #1 on:** February 26, 2010, 17:59 »

Quote from: Whitechild on February 26, 2010, 17:56

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..

borg · « **Reply #2 on:** February 26, 2010, 17:59 »

Quote from: Whitechild on February 26, 2010, 17:56

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!

Dreamframer · « **Reply #3 on:** February 26, 2010, 18:06 »

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 »

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

Dreamframer · « **Reply #5 on:** February 26, 2010, 19:26 »

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 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 26, 2010, 19:45 »

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"

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #7 on:** February 26, 2010, 21:23 »

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.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #8 on:** February 26, 2010, 22:15 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 26, 2010, 21:23

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.

UncleGene · « **Reply #9 on:** February 26, 2010, 22:23 »

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

Dreamframer · « **Reply #10 on:** February 26, 2010, 22:25 »

Quote from: UncleGene on February 26, 2010, 22:23

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.

Phil · « **Reply #11 on:** February 26, 2010, 23:29 »

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

melastmohican · « **Reply #12 on:** February 27, 2010, 00:34 »

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".

FD · « **Reply #13 on:** February 27, 2010, 03:42 »

Quote from: melastmohican on February 27, 2010, 00:34

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".

gostwyck · « **Reply #14 on:** February 27, 2010, 08:48 »

Quote from: Whitechild on February 26, 2010, 22:15

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.

Albert Martin · « **Reply #15 on:** February 27, 2010, 15:03 »

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!

Dreamframer · « **Reply #16 on:** February 27, 2010, 17:02 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 27, 2010, 08:48

Quote from: Whitechild on February 26, 2010, 22:15
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%

gostwyck · « **Reply #17 on:** February 27, 2010, 18:29 »

Quote from: Whitechild on February 27, 2010, 17:02

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 ...

FD · « **Reply #18 on:** February 27, 2010, 18:33 »

Quote from: Whitechild on February 27, 2010, 17:02

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.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #19 on:** February 27, 2010, 19:59 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 27, 2010, 18:29

Quote from: Whitechild on February 27, 2010, 17:02

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

gostwyck · « **Reply #20 on:** February 27, 2010, 20:29 »

sharply_done · « **Reply #21 on:** February 28, 2010, 00:56 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 27, 2010, 08:48

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!

luissantos84 · « **Reply #22 on:** February 28, 2010, 17:28 »

Quote from: Whitechild on February 27, 2010, 19:59

Quote from: gostwyck on February 27, 2010, 18:29
Quote from: Whitechild on February 27, 2010, 17:02

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!

Dreamframer · « **Reply #23 on:** March 01, 2010, 04:46 »

IS apparently don't think these images are poor quality, which is much more important to me...

gbalex · « **Reply #24 on:** March 01, 2010, 05:05 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 27, 2010, 08:48

Quote from: Whitechild on February 26, 2010, 22:15
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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Haha, I am not sure anymore what actually means "poor quality"?? :D (Read 29653 times)

Dreamframer

donding

borg

Dreamframer

lisafx

Dreamframer

donding

Sean Locke Photography

Dreamframer

UncleGene

Dreamframer

Phil

melastmohican

FD

gostwyck

Albert Martin

Dreamframer

gostwyck

FD

Dreamframer

gostwyck

sharply_done

luissantos84

Dreamframer

gbalex

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors