Quote from: shank_ali on July 15, 2011, 09:49

Quote from: velossaraptor on July 14, 2011, 16:50

so how would someone become a reviewer? they ever post on craigslist or anything?  It sounds like a pretty interesting job to me 

You have to be a photographer first and a bloody good one at that.

Sorry, but that�s a load of rubbish.  Being a good photographer isn�t necessary.  In fact, you don�t even need to be a photographer at all to be a good reviewer.  I�ve been dealing with composition, lighting, contrast, colour temperature etc. practically all my life as an artist and can easily pick a good photograph.  But ask me to produce a good photograph and I wouldn�t have a clue.  The requirements for a decent microstock reviewer are 1) a good set of eyes, 2) attention to detail, 3) a good understanding of the market.  Really, that's about it.

A microstock reviewer doesn�t need to be a photographer to pick out a good photo just as much as a food critic doesn�t need to be a chef, a music critic doesn�t need to be a musician, a book critic doesn�t need to be an author etc.  If photographic skills were needed to be able to review an image, then buyers, who aren�t photographers, will be buying as many crappy images as the good ones. 

Very true...

I think that is generally true. I've often had inspectors contact me happily over an image or a new series. seriously, inspectors are really nice people overall. BUT, I think it is human nature and a simple reality that inspector/admin work does sometimes end up where it shouldn't. maybe it's inadvertent, based on liking people/friendship....whatever. it may not be intentional or malicious, but there's evidence that it happens somewhat often enough to be noticeable. I'll take that grain of salt with the value that I think comes with human editors and individual image inspection.

Because if you know how things can happen it is lot easier to see. Not all files are perfectly clear yes/no acceptance/rejections, there is a lot of "grey area".  How much "grey" is acceptable will depend on the agency and their training priorities.

Agencies can also chose from a wide pool of candidates, why choose someone for a job who has no previous experience? Who has never picked up a camera or made a video or a stock illustration?? I am sure you can train many people to be inspectors, but it will obviously save time if you take people who understand what is necessary even before training begins.

Maybe there are agencies out there, that will hire anyone, but I find that hard to believe.

what we don't realise is that one picture more or less of the Eiffel Tower or an isolated tomato makes no difference at all to an agency with millions of shots. Accepting new stuff that is virtually identical to what they already have is more of a courtesy to the photographer than something that benefits the agency.

New images on the same subjects are likely to be better and larger, so I can understand agencies accepting new material on the same subject, if that is the case.

Very true!  No need at all to be a photographer, in fact I dont know of any professional,art-buyer, picture-editor, etc, who is. They have to be graphically orientated, educated ofcourse.

However it has to be understood, there is a VAST differance between a Micro reviewer and a professional picture-editor. A micro reviewer will get thrown a few softwares and will then sit there trying to detect technical issues, while a picture-editor is much more concerned with, say composition, colors, commercial value and saleabillity, does the shot convey a message? fit the product and so on.

The London AFAEP and OM, used to have a 2 year course for picture-editors, its quite a long time, gives an idea of that its not something you learn over a night.

As I said before, we are lucky in micro!  if pro picture-editors were employed, Boy!  75% of all our shots would go stright in the dustbin.

"I've been exposed to the most beautiful photography and when I'm staring at photographic artwork in a gallery, whether it's out loud or in my head, I can pick the image apart in detail without having any indepth knowledge of photography. "


That makes you a great Image Editor. Anybody can be an editor, just like anybody can be a food critic or reviewer for books. If a company will pay you for it is a different matter. Chosing designers as editors would be a very good idea.

We are mixing two different jobs here.

Image (or video, flash, illustration) Inspector is something else. It�s a very technical job although you of course need a good understanding of visual communication as well. Although I am a trained image inspector, I doubt I would make a very useful video inspector although I have seen loads of movies in my life. maybe with enough training I could learn it, but there will be loads of videographers to choose instead of me.

Maybe compare it to a senior building manager or Safety Inspector. Of course anyone can appreciate the beauty of architecture or interior design, but you need very specialized training to notice the fire hazards, if the right building materials have been used, why the pipes are clogging up fast, where the tension will strike in case of an earthquake, if escape routes are wide enough for people to pass in a panic. Is the software that runs the airconditioning compatible with the other software used in the building? Is a heating with Pellets, gas or solar most efficient? And what about the latest legal requirements in bulding insurance policies?

Depending on how technical this job is who will you train for this position? Someone who has a background in engineering or a hairdresser? The hairdresser can obviously learn the job, but it will take him much longer.

Something along that line. Maybe you can come up with a better comparison. But I think you understand what I am saying. Obviously we don�t need to agree :-)

"I've been exposed to the most beautiful photography and when I'm staring at photographic artwork in a gallery, whether it's out loud or in my head, I can pick the image apart in detail without having any indepth knowledge of photography. "


That makes you a great Image Editor. Anybody can be an editor, just like anybody can be a food critic or reviewer for books. If a company will pay you for it is a different matter. Chosing designers as editors would be a very good idea.

No that 'skill'... I wouldn't even call it a skill it's so basic, is a requirement that's needed in a lot of various roles in this industry... including a photographer, artist, designer, editor, reviewer, inspector, human being with eyes

Hi there!

Generelizing?  but where? maybe I worded it wrong?  what I meant was: if an editor, looking for the artistic, commercial value, etc, was going through all these gazillions of micro images in every agency there is ( no specific agency but all)  we would probably only have about 25% left.

I mean, you have to agree, todays photo agencies, may it be RM, RF, Micro?  its not exactly the heights of creations, is it?  its basically there to furnish buyers with ordinary pics, suitable for ordinary needs and if a buyer should want something tailormade, well thats when he comissions a dayrate photographer.

best.

Hi there!

Generelizing?  but where? maybe I worded it wrong?  what I meant was: if an editor, looking for the artistic, commercial value, etc, was going through all these gazillions of micro images in every agency there is ( no specific agency but all)  we would probably only have about 25% left.

I mean, you have to agree, todays photo agencies, may it be RM, RF, Micro?  its not exactly the heights of creations, is it?  its basically there to furnish buyers with ordinary pics, suitable for ordinary needs and if a buyer should want something tailormade, well thats when he comissions a dayrate photographer.

best.

So far, you're the only one who got it right.

Quote from: lagereek on July 18, 2011, 01:36

However it has to be understood, there is a VAST differance between a Micro reviewer and a professional picture-editor. A micro reviewer will get thrown a few softwares and will then sit there trying to detect technical issues, while a picture-editor is much more concerned with, say composition, colors, commercial value and saleabillity, does the shot convey a message? fit the product and so on.

I'm not going to argue you with you on this point, you and I both know two of the worlds most successful stock photographers who's work wouldn't pass a microstock inspection and yet they outselll every microstocker that there is. However a microstock reviewer is told to review for technical issues first and foremost, it's the microstock genre 'cheap technically sound photos' to complain about a reviewer doing what they've been told to do isn't an issue I have, I do however have an issue being told that an image I submit which is technically fine isn't going to sell - especially by a reviewer who's had less sales in five years that I get in one week with a portfolio one third the size of theirs - now that's something that should be addressed.

to Christian's point and now yours added with some clarity--I see what you're both saying. to be fair I'd like to add that I wouldn't expect editorial files to pass the usual image technical inspection standards on iStock. editorial shooting is often done at high ISO or from great distances and obviously with limited post processing.

but saying that, I've met some major shooters at events who told me they couldn't get commercial shots accepted, which frankly didn't matter a whole lot to them because they generally look down their noses at microstock anyways. they admitted to feeling that some of their peers were shooting stock and just didn't want to miss out on money to be had. shooting for microstock when you're also an editorial shooter sometimes feels like a dirty secret. but who cares, the markets have changed and attitudes will slowly adjust. it's of little consequence what 'old pros' think about microstock. there are plenty of them out there who are open-minded too and I have huge respect for so much of the work produced by many microstock contributors--the most serious of whom are also photographers in other media.

Quote from: lagereek on July 18, 2011, 01:36

However it has to be understood, there is a VAST differance between a Micro reviewer and a professional picture-editor. A micro reviewer will get thrown a few softwares and will then sit there trying to detect technical issues, while a picture-editor is much more concerned with, say composition, colors, commercial value and saleabillity, does the shot convey a message? fit the product and so on.

I'm not going to argue you with you on this point, you and I both know two of the worlds most successful stock photographers who's work wouldn't pass a microstock inspection and yet they outselll every microstocker that there is. However a microstock reviewer is told to review for technical issues first and foremost, it's the microstock genre 'cheap technically sound photos' to complain about a reviewer doing what they've been told to do isn't an issue I have, I do however have an issue being told that an image I submit which is technically fine isn't going to sell - especially by a reviewer who's had less sales in five years that I get in one week with a portfolio one third the size of theirs - now that's something that should be addressed.

Yep!  and its down and out scary that shooters like these two wouldnt pass and yet totally outsell anybody else. Jeez!

Quote from: lthn on July 20, 2011, 07:51

Quote from: RT on July 19, 2011, 15:27

I'm not going to argue you with you on this point, you and I both know two of the worlds most successful stock photographers who's work wouldn't pass a microstock inspection and yet they outselll every microstocker that there is. ...

Who are they? Made me curious.

Superb! in their own rights, both commercially and quality. To spill their names wouldnt be fair.

Why? Being stock shooter is a pretty public thing.