Author Topic: What's your opinion on the fact that reviewers are also contributors? (Read 32811 times)

michaeldb · « **Reply #25 on:** June 26, 2011, 13:49 »

Quote from: lthn on June 25, 2011, 06:01

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.

Freedom · « **Reply #26 on:** June 26, 2011, 13:58 »

Quote from: Karimala on June 26, 2011, 12:17

Contributors always worry about their fellow contributors reviewing their images. Really...there is no need to.

I used to be a reviewer, and all of the reviewers I know who are contributors are very fair. Where I worked, our boss regularly checked our work and always followed up with complaints about reviewing. One of our reviewers even owned her own stock agency! It wasn't a problem. Trust me...by the time you've reviewed your 2000th image of the day with all the crap that is submitted, you want to approve good images...some days you're even begging for good images. I could have cared less about my competition on those days! Just please let me look at something pretty without any problems...please please please!!! LOL

What contributors need to worry about is what they submit, not that the reviewer might also be competing with them. 300 images of the same seagull will give anyone a headache.

You maybe a fair person, but the practice is flawed. LuckyOlive was a small agency so it might be possible for the owner to micro-manage.

Karimala · « **Reply #27 on:** June 26, 2011, 15:40 »

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.

madelaide · « **Reply #28 on:** June 26, 2011, 21:27 »

Quote from: MatHayward on June 25, 2011, 13:21

I always thought it was a bunch of people crammed in a small windowless room in a third world country working 22 hour shifts and reviewing tens of thousands of pics at a time.

Oh, yes, this sounds like it could be Fotolia.

Shank_ali · « **Reply #29 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 !

luissantos84 · « **Reply #30 on:** July 13, 2011, 16:57 »

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 !

eheheh weren´t you the guy that sleep wasn´t needed???

RacePhoto · « **Reply #31 on:** July 13, 2011, 17:16 »

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 !

Just can't wait, have a good night.

Shank_ali · « **Reply #32 on:** July 14, 2011, 01:05 »

Awake and refreshed....
It use to piss me off that admins on Istockphoto would have there files accepted on the same day as they uploaded them.I said as much in the forum.I got slapped with a wet fish under the premise ..they earned that right !
I always got the impression, self inspection takes place, for a certain few of the staff which is quite understandable if there job is inspection.
A lot of inspectors at Istockphoto are artists in there own right and it's one of the reasons they are picked for the content team in the first place.
I made a lightbox some years ago on Istockphoto.....''Inspectors Delight ".It's packed with quality photographs which i admire.
I must be mellowing as i get older as i'm not concerned now that staff are also contributors.Also the fact that i met some of the inspectors/admins early this year in London and they turned out to be normal decent people who i hope to meet again in the not too distant future.

lthn · « **Reply #33 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.

lthn · « **Reply #34 on:** July 14, 2011, 02:43 »

Quote from: michaeldb on June 26, 2011, 13:49

Quote from: lthn on June 25, 2011, 06:01
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.

It's not the locked threads that are really bothersome imho, but this: whenever I run into one of these lamers with inpsector badge on the forums, I do peek into their ports.... and voila! Junk pics that are badly out of focus, crippled by noise, camera shake... it's all there usually. It's not like someone lets thru shots that are just great but have some minor technical porblems, thats cool. These pics sucked as* and where technically very poor. : ) Submitted by some indep. a milder version of just one the issues I saw with those shots would mean instant rejection. I don't know if they are dumb enough to forget anyone can zoom in or just dont even care. Obvious mob anyway, should be removed asap.

lagereek · « **Reply #35 on:** July 14, 2011, 02:44 »

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.

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #36 on:** July 14, 2011, 06:41 »

Here's my 2 cents worth...

In a perfect world, we'd be paying a reviewer $60K a year and there would be no risk of a conflict of interest. Realistically though, it's not feasible for a company to employ independent reviewers.

I can only speak of Dreamstime but so far I think they do a great job. They don't reject many of my images (mostly because I don't submit anything I feel will be rejected and because I'm more critical over my work than they are. Anything they have rejected I've agreed with the reason. There's only been one review that I appealed and they reversed their decision after I explained it.

As for the issue of a conflict of interest, the admin staff at DT are professional enough not to let their emotions or any other irrevelant factors influence their decision making when reviewing an image. They're pretty relaxed in the forum but they have a job to do and they get on with it and they do it well. I've butted heads with a few of them in the forums (lightly) and I haven't had that effect my reviews. So even though I don't always agree with a lot of the things they do, I have to say I respect them and the way they do their job.

I believe this topic's come up because everyone is feeling the pinch of a saturated industry. We're having more images rejected because the micros are growing and becoming fussier over what they stock... they have to be fussier. They should not only be fussy over what is accepted but should also start culling some of the old rubbish they initially accepted when they first started out and were accepting just about anything.

Shank_ali · « **Reply #37 on:** July 14, 2011, 13:18 »

Quote from: lagereek on July 14, 2011, 02:44

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.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #38 on:** July 14, 2011, 15:56 »

I kind of like knowing other "photographers" day (I am serious about this) but you haven´t add much about the "question" on this topic

velossaraptor · « **Reply #39 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

Shank_ali · « **Reply #40 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.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #41 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..

Shank_ali · « **Reply #42 on:** July 15, 2011, 16:33 »

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 !

luissantos84 · « **Reply #43 on:** July 15, 2011, 16:38 »

Quote from: shank_ali on July 15, 2011, 16:33

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!

lthn · « **Reply #44 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!

Shank_ali · « **Reply #45 on:** July 16, 2011, 04:13 »

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

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #46 on:** July 16, 2011, 04:39 »

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

I did a blog recently about an ad. I saw for reviewer positions. Obviously, I doubt one of the big agencies would have an ad like this, as it seemed like anyone could apply.

http://www.microstockposts.com/become-a-microstock-image-reviewer/

lthn · « **Reply #47 on:** July 16, 2011, 04:41 »

Quote from: shank_ali on July 16, 2011, 04:13

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.

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #48 on:** July 16, 2011, 07:57 »

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.

Shank_ali · « **Reply #49 on:** July 16, 2011, 09:47 »

Quote from: pseudonymous on July 16, 2011, 07:57

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

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: What's your opinion on the fact that reviewers are also contributors? (Read 32811 times)

michaeldb

Freedom

Karimala

madelaide

Shank_ali

luissantos84

RacePhoto

Shank_ali

lthn

lthn

lagereek

TheSmilingAssassin

Shank_ali

luissantos84

velossaraptor

Shank_ali

luissantos84

Shank_ali

luissantos84

lthn

Shank_ali

Microstock Posts

lthn

TheSmilingAssassin

Shank_ali

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors