MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => General - Top Sites => Topic started by: Carl on August 02, 2011, 07:21
-
This photo was rejected at SS ("Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect."):
(http://static6.depositphotos.com/1032122/624/i/110/depositphotos_6243922-Beautiful-Blonde-with-Marker-3.jpg)
But I add a simple graphic to the same photo, without any additional modification whatsoever, and it gets approved (submitted in the same batch):
(http://thumb9.shutterstock.com/thumb_large/130012/130012,1312064304,1/stock-photo-a-lovely-young-blonde-with-a-large-marker-isolated-on-white-background-drawing-a-spoke-like-81932830.jpg)
It sold within hours. On DT, however, both are rejected, with the usual list of possible reasons (pick a reason, any reason...). I had to chuckle... :P
-
You've gotta keep your sense of humour - congrats.
This 'inconsistency' has been going on for far longer than microl.
-
You do have to laugh....I can understand when they tell you they don't want your image because it does not have a commercial value to them, but when they tell you it has technical issues when its already accepted and sold elsewhere....... its a joke.
-
Borderline images always can go either way. People aren't robots.
-
@csproductions, that's hilarious!
Borderline images always can go either way. People aren't robots.
They were in the same batch so unless this reviewer has a serious case of dimentia, it has nothing to do with being 'borderline'. Either both images have poor lighting or both don't.
-
@csproductions, that's hilarious!
Borderline images always can go either way. People aren't robots.
They were in the same batch so unless this reviewer has a serious case of dimentia, it has nothing to do with being 'borderline'. Either both images have poor lighting or both don't.
One reviewer thinks it has poor lighting, the other doesn't. It's so often just luck of the draw and not just with ss.
-
Considering they were in the same batch, it's hard to make the case it was separate reviewers.
Most likely the reviewer hit the wrong rejection reason button. Maybe they thought it was not commercial enough without the graphic??
-
Considering they were in the same batch, it's hard to make the case it was separate reviewers.
Most likely the reviewer hit the wrong rejection reason button. Maybe they thought it was not commercial enough without the graphic??
Either that or decided why have 2 of the same thing and the one with the graphic is more marketable. I think the wrong button is often pressed and usually the lighting button. I had the same thing, involving an isolated version version of a rejected picture - the truth is the background on the non-isolated version was pure crap.
-
I don't know how other sites work or what 'same batch' means there, but I could upload 20 in a row, and they could be picked up by different people.
-
I don't know how other sites work or what 'same batch' means there, but I could upload 20 in a row, and they could be picked up by different people.
At Shutterstock images are uploaded in batches or groups, rather than piecemeal, and submitted all together. Each batch is reviewed at the same time, by presumably the same person. Doesn't work the same as it does on Istock.
-
Okey dokey.
-
I have the same experience at iStock. I submitted two photos which were shot within a few seconds in the same setting, except the model was laughing in one and serious in another. One was rejected for lighting and the other accepted.
-
Okey dokey.
Okey dokey? Do they use that across the pond?
-
Borderline images always can go either way. People aren't robots.
Here's an IS rejection. Borderline which way? :D I always laugh at the either or rejections or some with multiple reasons that contradict themselves.
The execution of isolation contains stray areas that are either too feathered or rough.
Or maybe both?
-
I have the same experience at iStock. I submitted two photos which were shot within a few seconds in the same setting, except the model was laughing in one and serious in another. One was rejected for lighting and the other accepted.
Which one? Is laughing more acceptable lighting because it's making light instead of dark frowning.
-
Yesterday I had twelve acceptances and four rejections. The four rejections were all for "date must be in the correct format - month date year" (ONLY), yet all 16 had the format date month, year, as all my others have, and as Sirimo said in the opening Caption thread: "Date data might be 'month date year" or "date month year" or in rare circumstances where the specific date isn't known just "month year" - so that shouldn't even be a choosable rejection reason. I haven't had any unfair caption rejections for a while, so I don't know if that means I've somehow avoided the rogue inspector for ages or if there are new editorial inspectors coming on board (and not before time, but they need to read the stickies).
And for those who care: this is more than a whine, it's a SCREAM.
-
I had one rejected for just about every reason possible, it was an object isolated on white. Accepted in the same batch was the exact same photo that I'd flipped into portrait orientation ;D
-
why can't they just say, "look, we hate it and frankly, you can do better"
or maybe a bit softer " we're just not that into it"
-
I had one rejected for just about every reason possible, it was an object isolated on white. Accepted in the same batch was the exact same photo that I'd flipped into portrait orientation ;D
So why would they accept two if its an isolation? If they have one, they have all they need since the image can be lifted out. And anyone can rotate in image.
-
why can't they just say, "look, we hate it and frankly, you can do better"
or maybe a bit softer " we're just not that into it"
FT does that.
-
why can't they just say, "look, we hate it and frankly, you can do better"
or maybe a bit softer " we're just not that into it"
FT does that.
they say something about aesthetics, which is a bit insulting when their site is not up there in user-friendliness.
-
why can't they just say, "look, we hate it and frankly, you can do better"
or maybe a bit softer " we're just not that into it"
FT does that.
they say something about aesthetics, which is a bit insulting when their site is not up there is user-friendliness.
No, they say something like, while your photo is great, we dont need it. Its not the aesthetic thing I am talking about.
-
FT is really the worst in terms of explaining the rejection (DT too), pretty much they are making fun of us saying to look for the problem ourself, only prove their lack of respect for our work, yep I know there are millions of files and contributors, they will never care...