pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Haha, I am not sure anymore what actually means "poor quality"?? :D  (Read 24162 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« 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
19741 Views
Last post February 04, 2009, 10:54
by Lcjtripod
9 Replies
6365 Views
Last post March 22, 2011, 13:12
by donding
8 Replies
4509 Views
Last post July 29, 2012, 08:00
by OM
6 Replies
2522 Views
Last post August 28, 2014, 11:00
by Ploink
9 Replies
3090 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