I would like your 2 cents 

In Shutterstock I don't know because rev. are a bit of hidden, but in Fotolia and Dreamstime, the most of them are also contributors with its images online. Do you think that they have preferential treatment in approvals and get their images rather approved than normal contributors?

Not only that, but are they more likely to refuse images that are in direct competition with their own work?

Sure, it's an awful concept. Obviously the sites can spare a lot of money this way, they just offer the job to ppl who they already know are cheapos anyway, and than you'll have a bunch dilettants reviewing images for a dime a piece. The worst case is istock, where the dilettant staff shamelessly hijacked the whole thing. If you think getty is bad for istock, what do you think of these admins-inspectors who play little mob bosses on 'their site', as if it was some sandbox for dumb and dumber?

It's definitely a conflict of interests. But the sites are only interested in making more money. I doubt fairness is a concern for the agencies.

It's definitely a conflict of interests. But the sites are only interested in making more money. I doubt fairness is a concern for the agencies.

Exactly.  It's a conflict of interest because of basic human nature.  It's a system that should be changed, but won't because of the reason you gave. 

I think it's part of the game and I don't have an issue with that. It would be too obvious if a rater would start aiming at his competitors, because refusals generate complaints.

Pro picture editors won't scan photos for some noise in irrelevant parts of it.

I'd only check for legal issues, and obvious technical problems (purple fringe, out of focus) leaving decisions about what sells to the buyers and artistic choices (selective focus, lighting, level of noise) to the photographers.

This way - no matter who the reviewers are - there's nothing unfair they can do with a clear set of rules.

I am not an never have been a reviewer..

However, how else will sites find people willing and able to conduct reviews for the return they get?

Probably the biggest  benefit for a reviewer is the education that comes with the job.

Beg to differ but the biggest benefit for a reviewer is getting payed to work from home, sat on there bums and looking at there computer.Nice work if you can get it !
I made a lightbox on Istockphoto called..Inspectors Delight.It contains beautiful and stunning work from talented artists who also happen to be Istock inspectors.Respect the talent and never question there commitment to there respective companies.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 25, 2011, 05:56

I am not an never have been a reviewer..

However, how else will sites find people willing and able to conduct reviews for the return they get?

Probably the biggest  benefit for a reviewer is the education that comes with the job.

Beg to differ but the biggest benefit for a reviewer is getting payed to work from home, sat on there bums and looking at there computer.Nice work if you can get it !

Not a lot different from what we do, is it? I know a couple of ex-inspectors. The impression they gave me was that the pay is pitiful and the work mind-numbing.

Are you sure that inspector are also contributors? On Shutterstock too? I don't like this idea, I think that it's not serious because there's a big conflict of interest. Who are the inspectors on Fotolia? I find them not so enlightened in their choices....

Yes, the once I know are anyways.  Not sure if Mat is asking me that questions, but if so, I don't know any Fotolia inspectors at all and the ones I know happen to be shooting partners of mine so I know them through our friendship.  But nobody's providing me any list of inspectors and such.  At IS there is really "no secret who their inspectors are" and most of them are also contributors. So in my case it's pure coincidence that I happen to shoot with some, that's all.

Quote from: shank_ali_reborn on June 25, 2011, 13:28

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 25, 2011, 05:56

I am not an never have been a reviewer..

However, how else will sites find people willing and able to conduct reviews for the return they get?

Probably the biggest  benefit for a reviewer is the education that comes with the job.

Beg to differ but the biggest benefit for a reviewer is getting payed to work from home, sat on there bums and looking at there computer.Nice work if you can get it !

Not a lot different from what we do, is it? I know a couple of ex-inspectors. The impression they gave me was that the pay is pitiful and the work mind-numbing.

^^yep.  I hear stories as recent as last month when we were shooting together about the constant flow of isolated tomatoes and apples on white, the constant flood of the same subject matter day after day, and simple self review prior to submitting of out of focus images, white balance way off, etc.  And it's day after day after day.  I definitely got the impression that it's a monotonous machine.  Once comment that was made, however, is that every now and then they see something really refreshing and new, which gives them shooting ideas of their own, hence the self value they can get from the job.

definitely a conflict of interest - cant think of any other field that would get away with this - book reviewers, movie critics, etc are all screened for possible bias, PLUS the reviewers are known publicly, so their customers can determine whether there's bias or not. 

at the very least, reviewers should not be allowed to review work similar to what they shoot.  if the reviews are technically oriented, training, not experience is sufficient.  i'm surprised that these agencies give so much trust to reviewers to determine what will show up in their collections.

another factor is how reviewers are paid - any per image payment is going to encourage quick reaction reviews.  do every reviewer look at every image at 100%?  or do they get an idea of the image from an enlarged thumbnail?

Well guys, I think that photographers should never be reviewers!
Best Reviewers would be designers who use photos and illustrations...

All other constellations come up with problems.

Cheers!

Sure, it's an awful concept. Obviously the sites can spare a lot of money this way, they just offer the job to ppl who they already know are cheapos anyway, and than you'll have a bunch dilettants reviewing images for a dime a piece. The worst case is istock, where the dilettant staff shamelessly hijacked the whole thing. If you think getty is bad for istock, what do you think of these admins-inspectors who play little mob bosses on 'their site', as if it was some sandbox for dumb and dumber?

1000% true. There might not be a Dreamstime or Shutterstock if IS reviewers had not rejected so many of the commercially viable images submitted to them. Then mocked and locked threads complaining about this.

I know a lot of reviewers, and as they have told me over the years, it works the same way at the larger agencies, too.  It's not like reviewers are completely independent.  They all have supervision.  They also sign contracts, which bind them to be fair in their reviewing and not do anything to hurt the company.  You can't sabotage another contributors' portfolio just because it competes with yours...you just can't.  It would be pretty darn easy to spot and the reviewer would lose their job (and probably have their portfolio removed from the agency as a result).  Also...something else to know...depending on the agency, reviewers can also check their fellow reviewers reviews.  If a reviewer was targeting a portfolio, it would be discovered eventually.  Lots of eyes checking things behind the scenes, even at the smallest agencies. 

I have an opinion on this matter.I shall post it tomorrow.I'm tired and emotional.I need to sleep !

I have an opinion on this matter.I shall post it tomorrow.I'm tired and emotional.I need to sleep !

Just can't wait, have a good night.

I have an opinion on this matter.I shall post it tomorrow.I'm tired and emotional.I need to sleep !

Ohh, breaking news. When you wake up, don't forget to tell us what you intend to have for breakfast., and what are your feelings about that.

Quote from: shank_ali on July 13, 2011, 16:44

I have an opinion on this matter.I shall post it tomorrow.I'm tired and emotional.I need to sleep !

Ohh, breaking news. When you wake up, don't forget to tell us what you intend to have for breakfast., and what are your feelings about that.

Yeah Shanks, we wanna know what you had for breakfast and how you intend to spend your day in the forums.

Quote from: lthn on July 14, 2011, 02:29

Quote from: shank_ali on July 13, 2011, 16:44

I have an opinion on this matter.I shall post it tomorrow.I'm tired and emotional.I need to sleep !

Ohh, breaking news. When you wake up, don't forget to tell us what you intend to have for breakfast., and what are your feelings about that.

Yeah Shanks, we wanna know what you had for breakfast and how you intend to spend your day in the forums.

A nice cup of tea and slice of toast is just the job to start a new day.See how i mentioned a 'job' in that sentance? I do actually have one and it takes up 38 hours of my week( mon-fri).I am now in my 26th year with the same company!.You no something else i enjoy it because ever single day is different.I also take my camera with me most places and shoot stock in my lunch break.The thought of ever being an image inspector makes me go zzzzzzz.

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

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 might not be true.. there must be smaller agencies having "stock friends" as reviewers, of course they aren�t paying very well but you might not be a very good photographer (actually it is well payed??), you do need to know all the technical side, which after a few months/years as stock photographer you will get to it..

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 15, 2011, 12:55

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 might not be true.. there must be smaller agencies having "stock friends" as reviewers, of course they aren�t paying very well but you might not be a very good photographer (actually it is well payed??), you do need to know all the technical side, which after a few months/years as stock photographer you will get to it..

I was specifically talking about Istock and i also no they train there new inspectors.They usually let them view non exclusives sub standard work   before viewing my creme de la creme !

Ah.. I see.. that�s why non-exclusives don�t go well on IS, only Yuri as an exception!

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.

Contrary to that, inspectors' galleries I'v seen were lined with piss poor shots. The funny part is that most of them were even technically piss poor too!

When i look at other people's photographs i always notice the good points.It's a posative approach that encourages my belief in creating beauty from my own camera ...If you do get the time please have a look at my lightbox via my istock account..:Inspectors Delight ".Not a piss poor shot in sight IMO.
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&lightboxID=6878823

Quote from: lthn on July 16, 2011, 03:31

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.

Contrary to that, inspectors' galleries I'v seen were lined with piss poor shots. The funny part is that most of them were even technically piss poor too!

When i look at other people's photographs i always notice the good points.It's a posative approach that encourages my belief in creating beauty from my own camera ...If you do get the time please have a look at my lightbox via my istock account..:Inspectors Delight ".Not a piss poor shot in sight IMO.
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&lightboxID=6878823

Only looking at the 'nice points' is not positive it's just selective. Someone more critical might even say it's just simply ignorant. It will also not help you to improve, improvement comes from critrical thinking and critical observation.

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. 

Eh rubbish of me...Never 

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.

That's a great idea. I would like to add that they should open reviewing positions to anyone who wants it. Anyone that gets too many complaints, gets booted from the list of reviewers.

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on June 25, 2011, 12:35

I'd only check for legal issues, and obvious technical problems (purple fringe, out of focus) leaving decisions about what sells to the buyers and artistic choices (selective focus, lighting, level of noise) to the photographers.

This way - no matter who the reviewers are - there's nothing unfair they can do with a clear set of rules.

I agree and I reviewed for 3+ years. In all my time , I've never met anyone at anytime that knew what will sell and what won't. The sites know what subjects do best but individual Images? No way, No how. I looked at probably 400,000 Images in my time and I let through maybe 25%. What I did learn was what not to shoot.
I think most reviewers look for different things, I personally didn't look for noise, I looked primarily at Does this tell me a story or what it could be used for and did it do that in seconds. My thing was composition. Some pixel peep,others didn't. For what we get paid in commissions and the majority of uses The 100% rule was kinda silly in My book.. 75% OK but 100? I dunno. I saw all the so called top shooters at 100% and trust me it could have been better. What made it totally fun was every now and then along comes a kid with the most amazing fresh stuff you can Imagine, Thats what we lived for after a gazillion strawberries,Brick walls,pets,Kiwi,meercats [for some strange reason] ducks , horrible flowers,isolations and items around the house for the millionth time etc,etc,etc. LOL I enjoyed it actually.... at times. And other times Like going to the dentist.

quick question, what agency Laurin?

Sorry man.

I'm always vexed by the occasional rejection for "Limited Commercial Value". I just got this from Shutterstock on a isolated photo of a wooden spoon. Well, I'm a buyer as well as an contributor, and I was contracted to put together an illustration of an ice tea pitcher with a wooden spoon. The reason I submitted my spoon (which was accepted by the other top eight) was because the other choices were limited, poor, or at the wrong angle.

What a lot of reviewers don't realize, is how many ad agencies are looking for isolated everyday objects to drop into their photo illustration. How can any well photographed object be of "Limited Commercial Value"?

I've never been a fan of the contributor as inspector or LCV rejections. The thing I really hate are the new images a week after my rejection that are approved, taken by someone else, but with the same concepts/lighting/poses to the ones that  I took. There was a big blow up in the forums about rejections a few years back but my posts on the subject were deleted. For the record I didn't start the thread, I just asked what the difference was between my images and the ones that were approved.

I've never been a fan of the contributor as inspector or LCV rejections. The thing I really hate are the new images a week after my rejection that are approved, taken by someone else, but with the same concepts/lighting/poses to the ones that  I took. There was a big blow up in the forums about rejections a few years back but my posts on the subject were deleted. For the record I didn't start the thread, I just asked what the difference was between my images and the ones that were approved.

This have also happened to me a pile of times, and it's the most pissing off crap that you can came across in the MS agencies

Its as I said before,  can be a very tricky situation and can be open to abuse if not careful. Its NOT an ideal world and reviewers and contributors can have very close friendships, etc.

I used to be with one that continously rejected files that had sold thousands of times but accepted files with say 5 dls or even zero dls. It made me wonder so I left the site recently.

I have always maintained that picture editors should not even be photographers but graphically and creativly orientaded. In the trad RM world, theres an old saying "photographers are  the lousiest judges of pictures ever"  thats true! they cant keep an open nor objective mind. I cant do that myself.

In my own private RM library, I never ever judge my own shots, I actually pay a proper AD, to do it for me, in order to make sure no non commercial rubbish clogg up the files.