Author Topic: Would you like the real reason? (Read 5500 times)

jamiehooper · « **on:** April 03, 2015, 11:57 »

Judging from the boards, it looks like lots of us, at one time or another, have had images rejected for what we "knew" were incorrect reasons. Files with "too much noise" or "too much sharpening", or "incorrect color balance", or "not enough mp." I'm speaking of knowledgeable pros here that use a large, color profiled monitor and check at 100%.

So, here's an idea.
What if some reviewers look at an image and know that there's just a glut of that type of image with nothing new added (judge's gavel, rose with dew etc.).
Could it be that, instead of giving the real reason (which is not in their arsenal of boilerplate rejection reasons) they have to use something else?
Maybe, maybe not.

BUT, if that WERE true, how would you feel about being given that as a reason?
"We have enough images of this type, and your image does not add anything new?"

Personally, if my supposition is true, I'd rather have the honest reason rather than feeling I'd be personally attacked (wildly paranoid) or worse yet, trying to figure out how to fix problems that I can't see.

I might still not like the reason and disagree with it; but at least I wouldn't spend time trying to fix something that ain't broke only to be rejected again.

Chime in.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #1 on:** April 03, 2015, 12:12 »

I just submitted three images, all shot on the same day, same lighting, same subject, etc, each just a couple of minutes apart. I broke them up into two submissions. The first two were accepted and the third, in a different submission, was rejected for lighting. Not exactly a glut of images in that vein. I really do think it depends somewhat on the reviewer you get that day.

Stock Wife · « **Reply #2 on:** April 03, 2015, 12:40 »

Flotilla does use this as a reason for rejections. A good chunk of my rejections there are for 'similar image.' The images aren't similar to the ones I've already uploaded but to the content they already have online. Their rejection says that the current image is related to content they already have a lot of AND it isn't higher quality than what they already have. So if you post an image that is better than the others like it currently up, it can still get accepted. I've had plenty of that happen, too. To me, it does feel better to be rejected for this reason than other reasons.

cascoly · « **Reply #3 on:** April 03, 2015, 13:00 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on April 03, 2015, 12:12

I just submitted three images, all shot on the same day, same lighting, same subject, etc, each just a couple of minutes apart. I broke them up into two submissions. The first two were accepted and the third, in a different submission, was rejected for lighting. Not exactly a glut of images in that vein. I really do think it depends somewhat on the reviewer you get that day.

I get that all the time -- on SS, editorial images now often get accepted when non-ed get rejected for low light -- only difference being the subject is identifiable in one instance, not the other

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #4 on:** April 03, 2015, 13:01 »

the problem is much like everywhere else or even especially shutterstock... no basic standard for reviewers to follow. you can have one reviewer who will look at your work shot like shelma1 said at the same shoot approved and another reject. even identical shots will have focus is not where it should be and the other is fine. eg bowl of fruit with the bowl edge in the rear not in focus .
one reviewer will see that it is the fruit that is the point of focus. the other will want all of it to be in focus ... no doubt clueless about the use of critical focus.
depends, as someone said, you get some photo 101 teacher who knows only depth of field
and no clue about the idea of point of focal interest.
or you get one who thinks everything has to follow the golden rule and white balance has to always be white, even sunset with a white house and a white car has to be white or else you get wrong WB.
no training whatsoever for all reviewers. just go as you think. so, no doubt inconsistency.

and then there atilla where everything is wrong. so long as (s)he gets paid.
in fact i hear tell that atilla is a she... if so, she must be letting her kid do the reviewing
so no surprise you get a mass rejection incident most of the time. kid went wild with the mouse LMAO

heywoody · « **Reply #5 on:** April 04, 2015, 17:53 »

Jamie is spot on.

Sites want what they want and don't want what they don't want. We have no actual entitlement to have images accepted it they are not useful, no matter how perfectly focused etc

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #6 on:** April 04, 2015, 18:02 »

The dont want reason would be better to digest than LCV rejections.

shudderstok · « **Reply #7 on:** April 04, 2015, 19:49 »

I personally like how Getty Images "edits" photos. You have to submit images that are from the same shoot and/or similar. They pick the ones they want and reject the rest. If you work gets rejected for some technical reason, chances are it's technical reason. If you submit 5-6 images of a bowl of strawberries from the same shoot for example, they might take 1 or 2 and reject the others due to they have picked the best ones. This lack of editing is what is killing stock photography in my opinion. The sense of entitlement from the micro crowd is unbelievable. I most recently sent Getty Images 5 shots of a scenic, from slightly different angles, all of them quite nice in my opinion, they took only 1 and rejected the rest as what they call "loose" in other words they took the best one. Now if this was microstock, they would have taken everything which is nonsense. Oh, and Getty Images takes days to weeks to accept your image, and the micro crowd seems to think it should all be live now.

Pixart · « **Reply #8 on:** April 06, 2015, 09:25 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on April 03, 2015, 13:01

and then there atilla where everything is wrong. so long as (s)he gets paid.
in fact i hear tell that atilla is a she... if so, she must be letting her kid do the reviewing
so no surprise you get a mass rejection incident most of the time. kid went wild with the mouse LMAO

My dear friend, you definitely know every technique to insult people don't you?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Would you like the real reason? (Read 5500 times)

jamiehooper

Shelma1

Stock Wife

cascoly

etudiante_rapide

heywoody

Semmick Photo

shudderstok

Pixart

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors