pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What's your opinion on the fact that reviewers are also contributors?  (Read 28780 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #50 on: July 17, 2011, 12:32 »
0
in my opinion inspectors should be professionally successful and educated/experienced in whatever medium they inspect. I agree that there is a potential conflict of interest that inspectors are also contributors competing within the database with those whose files they inspect, but there's also an advantage to them having a stake in the community's well-being. One consistency I've noticed is that I have not met one inspector I didn't like. more than that, I've experienced a willingness to help, give advice, share info, and honestly critique work on an individual basis in just about every interaction I've had with inspectors.

that doesn't mean I like it when I see work by an inspector or admin loaded into Vetta and Agency just because, but for that matter there's lots of work by contributors in V/A that I feel is better suited to main collection or even the rejection bin.


« Reply #51 on: July 17, 2011, 14:33 »
0
so how would someone become a reviewer? they ever post on craigslist or anything?  It sounds like a pretty interesting job to me  ;D
You have to be a photographer first and a bloody good one at that.

Sorry, but thats a load of rubbish.  Being a good photographer isnt necessary.  In fact, you dont even need to be a photographer at all to be a good reviewer.  Ive 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 wouldnt 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 doesnt need to be a photographer to pick out a good photo just as much as a food critic doesnt need to be a chef, a music critic doesnt need to be a musician, a book critic doesnt need to be an author etc.  If photographic skills were needed to be able to review an image, then buyers, who arent photographers, will be buying as many crappy images as the good ones. 

Very true...

« Reply #52 on: July 17, 2011, 14:45 »
0
A reviewer needs to be an expert at the medium he or she is handling. So those who inspect photographs have to be photographers. They dont have to be the worlds best artists with tons of prizes, but they need to understand what they are seeing.  To be able to understand how image faults occur you have to know how they are created.

An Image editor - now that is a different thing.

They have to decide on the commercial quality of a file, add them to different collections an agency has or put together lightboxes for buyers or special markets.

Sometimes the Image inspector will also be an editor, but they dont have to. Might be better to keep these jobs separate.

As for the reviewers rejecting files because they compete with their own...I am sure any agency will immediatly fire a reviewer who does that. When you inspect, you inspect. It has nothing to do with your own portfolio. And what would be the point anyway? Unless you get all reviewers to reject the files that compete with your portfolio, your colleagues will be the ones accepting the files from your "competition". Besides, nobody has a crystal ball, how would you even know if the file will sell???

Of course, reviewers are only humane, and will make mistakes, but personal portfolio preference isnt something I would worry about. Id worry more about how many cats with red eyes the poor reviewers has seen on that day, if you are submitting cat files...

Seriously, reviewers love to accept images. It is a lot more fun than rejecting a file.
 

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #53 on: July 17, 2011, 14:53 »
0
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.

« Reply #54 on: July 17, 2011, 16:51 »
0
Cobalt, I don't see why you need to understand HOW a fault happened to be able to see that it has happened.
Artifacts, focus, good/bad composition - I think they can all be recognised by someone who has never picked up a camera.
On a different level - Because we have an emotional connection with our work we like to think it is carefully judged on its merits, 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.

« Reply #55 on: July 17, 2011, 17:18 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2011, 17:20 by cobalt »

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #56 on: July 17, 2011, 20:40 »
0
A reviewer needs to be an expert at the medium he or she is handling. So those who inspect photographs have to be photographers. They dont have to be the worlds best artists with tons of prizes, but they need to understand what they are seeing.  To be able to understand how image faults occur you have to know how they are created.

I don't agree at all.  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.  I've seen lots of brilliant work to know if an image is good or bad.  Likewise, I've seen a lot of bad photographs from so called professionals.  A reviewer doesn't need to know anything about photography to pick a photo apart.  They're job is to make decisions about the output their reviewing, not about how it was produced, what equipment was used etc... that's the photographer's job, not theirs.  They don't need to hold the photographer's hand and walk them through the process of perfecting their image.  All they need to do is focus on what they're visually seeing... contrast, white balance, noise, saturation etc.  I have no interest in it but I could easily be a reviewer... I've been reviewing images all my life and I have no experience in professional photography.  I've taken some beautiful photos with my old SLR only because I had a decent camera that had a lot of automated features, the lighting outside was perfect, I had a good view in front of me and who knows... maybe I fluked it.  It doesn't matter.  If they were digital I would have uploaded them and am confident they would have been accepted.  Ask me how I produced those amazing images and I'll tell you "I clicked" :D

So not only is it my opinion that a reviewer doesn't have to have professional experience in photography, but I personally prefer they don't have it.  If I were recruiting reviewers, I would want someone that's on the same level playing field as a buyer.  I would be recruiting designers rather than photographers because they know a good image when they see one and know the market.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2011, 20:45 by pseudonymous »

« Reply #57 on: July 17, 2011, 21:26 »
0
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.

« Reply #58 on: July 18, 2011, 00:58 »
0
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.

Exactly. Dt is culling their database by deleting old images which haven't sold, but at the same time not accepting different versions of same shoots and not accepting new images of stuff which is already online. This kind of thing is obviously detrimental to us, but also detrimental to buyers by not giving them more choice and more choice of newer images, which as you say are likely to be better than older ones. I don't understand the logic of the agencies. They might as well refuse all new images, if they feel they have enough of everything and save money by not having reviewers.

lagereek

« Reply #59 on: July 18, 2011, 01:36 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2011, 01:41 by lagereek »

« Reply #60 on: July 18, 2011, 17:49 »
0
any agency that allows other stock photographers to be reviewers needs to have at least 2 rules:

1. no reviewer can review subjects they also shoot themselves - have studi photogs review travel, and vice versa.

2. no photographetr/ reviewer should be able to reject for non-technical reasons

as far as the comment about supervisors knowing if bias occurs, there's no way, unless they are checking every batch of reviews

« Reply #61 on: July 18, 2011, 17:56 »
0
"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. Its 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 dont need to agree :-)
« Last Edit: July 18, 2011, 18:22 by cobalt »

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #62 on: July 18, 2011, 20:06 »
0
any agency that allows other stock photographers to be reviewers needs to have at least 2 rules:

1. no reviewer can review subjects they also shoot themselves - have studi photogs review travel, and vice versa.

2. no photographetr/ reviewer should be able to reject for non-technical reasons

as far as the comment about supervisors knowing if bias occurs, there's no way, unless they are checking every batch of reviews

lol I don't know what these two rules will achieve.

1.  How messy will this get?  Most photographers portfolios is a mixed bag of lollies.  Doing this is a time waster as it's just another decision they have to make about the image and who will review it.  Images could end up sitting in a "too hard basket" for weeks because it's unclear who's allowed to review it.

2.  How would this work?  Every image needs to be reviewed for both technical and non-technical reasons.

It's simple, you either trust your employees or you don't hire them.  You put in place procedures like random audits checking reviewers work.  The boss sits down with a reviewer quarterly or something and discusses random rejections.  A reviewer who's a photographer also has a vested interest in the company and doesn't want it to go down the tubes. 

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #63 on: July 18, 2011, 20:12 »
0
"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 :D

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #64 on: July 18, 2011, 20:20 »
0
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.

Christian, half the time you seem to know what you;re talking about, but then you say something like this and I think...whah? talk about generalizing, hyperbole and black and white thinking. funny--because I regularly speak to "PROs" and editors with papers where I submit work who couldn;t get their own work accepted at iStock and lost interest. what's the point of generalizing like you have in your statement? as someone pointed out earlier, in most of these debates, the truths lies firmly in the middle somewhere.

lagereek

« Reply #65 on: July 19, 2011, 01:53 »
0
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.

Shank_ali

    This user is banned.
« Reply #66 on: July 19, 2011, 14:00 »
0
Reviewers are inspectors and as they are human they see things differently.If you upload 3 photos from the same shoot and the first two get accepted along comes inspector two and inspects image 3 and rejects it for poor lighting.Which inspector would you buy a pint for and which would get a kick on the shin.
Hopely Scout will let my third image into the Istockphoto collection.Small impasse.Please continue.

« Reply #67 on: July 19, 2011, 14:09 »
0
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.

RT


« Reply #68 on: July 19, 2011, 15:27 »
0
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.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #69 on: July 19, 2011, 16:24 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2011, 20:50 by SNP »

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #70 on: July 20, 2011, 07:51 »
0

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.

lagereek

« Reply #71 on: July 20, 2011, 08:02 »
0
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!

lagereek

« Reply #72 on: July 20, 2011, 08:05 »
0

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.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #73 on: July 20, 2011, 08:30 »
0

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.

photografix

  • Wage peace, not war
« Reply #74 on: July 24, 2011, 15:47 »
0
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.

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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
22 Replies
8629 Views
Last post October 04, 2006, 02:37
by leaf
1 Replies
3962 Views
Last post April 18, 2008, 06:35
by Seren
14 Replies
5702 Views
Last post August 09, 2011, 17:08
by fotografer
Envato's idea of a fun fact

Started by Semmick Photo Envato

9 Replies
6970 Views
Last post September 25, 2015, 03:24
by sharpshot
0 Replies
1586 Views
Last post February 10, 2015, 17:27
by heywoody

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors