pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Don't you just love it!  (Read 4942 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ianhlnd

  • tough men are pussys
« on: June 22, 2007, 21:30 »
0
i guess I've been around stock long enough to what to do and what to look for when submitting photos.  But what do you do when you submit a picture, rejected for copyright infringement. 

Looking at the picture at 300%, I find what may look like a logo, and wash it out.  This is working on a RAW copy.  run it through Noise Ninja, and get a rejection for over sharpening.  Run it through Neat image, another rejection for artifacts and noise.  I'm looking at this thing at 300% and can't find it.  Of the five submitted, one is accepted, and that one sold 30 times this week full of noise and artifacts and a rather bad isolation.

On another site I uploaded, all  5 pictures, the reviewer added the note  "Cool"

Yeah, Yeah, I know, happens to all of us, but I guess my gripe is why can't they be consistent?  If it's rejected for something, why come up with something else next time it's uploaded?

Pissed, somewhere in the Pacific Ocean



« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2007, 01:30 »
0
We've all been there, if that's any consolation.

My only complaint is with IS - I can't believe some of the rejections I've had with those guys! It can get very frustrating at times.

« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2007, 04:03 »
0
We all have the right to gripe sometimes.  :-\

« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2007, 16:56 »
0
We're with ya, bro!   

 ianhlnd,  where exactly is  'somewhere in the South Pacific'? We're jealous!

8)=tom


« Last Edit: June 23, 2007, 23:32 by a.k.a.-tom »

« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2007, 17:09 »
0
Yes, some rejection are really unbelievable.

I had a new rejection reason yesterday.  Comprehensible this time.  It is a 4Mpix image and DT rejected it because if you crop it tight around the isolated object, it's under 3Mpix.  They're correct, though I haven't done this on purpose, the composition led to this empty area.



Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2007, 23:01 »
0
The micros are dealing with a large variety of customers numbering in the thousands, and those customers have repeatedly complained about poor quality images.  When the micros first started, they accepted everything under the sun, and in turn the customers demanded better quality.  Not every customer is in the printing business, or knows how to improve a poor quality photo.  We must provide that service for them. 

Another reason for the high quality standards is that the micros are trying to overcome the early reputation for sub par imagery and attract top notch photographers who a few years ago would never have dreamed about selling their work for so little. 

ianhlnd

  • tough men are pussys
« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2007, 01:18 »
0
Karimala, I agree, but that's not the gripe.  The gripe is that with every post of the same photo, the goal post is changed.  If they think the photo sucks.  Say it "sucks" and "we don't want that kind of crap on our site".  I can handle that.  But to say it's because of one problem, and then a different problem, and then.... well you know the rest.  I'm led to believe that they really don't know what they're looking at.

a.k.a. Tom, right now, somewhere in the Pacific is Catalina.  I'm hanging out here then down to San Diego for some retro fit,  and sit out the hurricane season, then off to Baja, Guatemala, and Costa Rica.  I'm sitting in the cove where Natalie Wood drowned, which leads to the question, "Do you know what kind of wood doesn't float?"  Well, you know the answer to that one.

« Reply #7 on: June 24, 2007, 02:05 »
0
Oh...believe me.  I understand the problem!  I'm a Bouncer with LO as well as a photographer, so I get to view it from both sides of the fence.  :-D  Not sure where it went, but there was actually another post in this thread that I was responding to...something about selling directly to various publishers.  It's not here anymore.

So...anyway...

One thing I've learned is that the review process is very different from one site to the next.  Some require their reviewers meet weekly quotas, some require a minimum number of hours per day for those quotas to be met, some require reviewers to be full-time employees meeting quotas, while others are more flexible and don't have quotas or time requirements.  Add those stressful conditions to a system of canned responses where the reviewers can only choose one, and yeh...the variety of responses gets pretty confusing and frustrating for the photographer. 

And, of course, every reviewer is different.  Some are tougher than others, just like some of the sites are tougher than others.  At LO, some of the Bouncers provide lengthy reviews, while others keep it short and sweet (I'm of the latter variety).  All of us are well-trained in quality control and technical issues, and I personally don't know any reviewer who isn't also a contributor on the micros.   

« Reply #8 on: June 24, 2007, 04:39 »
0
-> ianhlnd

I have the same problems nearly regularly and even if I want to keep cool Im angry every time I get such an rejection mail. Its no problem when the rejection is based on a real problem (for ex. you have forgotten a logo) or when they say "no, we do not like it". I can handle this. But if there is today this problem, tomorrow that problem and the next day another problem, its really frustrating - especially if you have an upload limit.

The same is when you had a series of photos: Same light and the same workflow, but some are OK, some not - depending on the inspector.

I think, some microstock-inspectors work too exactly in the moment, one little artifact on a 4200 x 2800 pixel photo and they say no. They are afraid that a buyer could complain and they get a problem. But they do not think of the frustration of the 1000 photographers getting rejections that are hard do understand. But again: Often the rejections are OK and understandable, and I think we all had learned a lot of these rejections!

But sometimes I like it getting rejections on microstocks: Some month ago I had a scan of a photo that was really not so good (to my opinion). All microstocks rejected it because of artifacts etc. I decided to upload it to a macrostock and they said it was OK. Last week it had been sold to a large insurance company for printing in A3 and they like its - 250 Euros for me.... :D

« Reply #9 on: June 24, 2007, 06:12 »
0
Not sure where it went, but there was actually another post in this thread that I was responding to...something about selling directly to various publishers.  It's not here anymore.

   

Sorry, bad habit...Karimala...   I run my own  forum style site. When there doesn't seem to be interest in something said, I usually delete or modify in the interest of saving space.... especially photo's, video and other large files... I tend to do that here too if there is not a response within a day, just looking after leaf, and others so that they don't have to read thru boring non-issues.  anywho,  that was me.

Thanks for the information.  I still think that some microsites are missing out on some great and saleable pix, but I suppose that's the nature of the biz.  If  an image is bad, fine, reject it.... but if it's selling like crazy somewhere else, is it really bad?

To ianhld's further point on a macro accepting what all his micros rejected.... that's my exact point.  I'm selling direct to publishers, editors, designers with none of this  'noise, artifact'  hassle.
   One further point I thought was interesting.  In a recent photo essay of my pix published in a 'town & country'  magazine, the editor asked for a series of a specific topic. Rather than shoot new,  I handed in a CD with some old pix I had shot a couple years earlier relating to the subject.  On that disk were some of my wife's pictures that she shot on her  3 meg  'point and shoot'.   My point... they used one of her 3 meg shots as a fullpage cover pic for the article.  It looked great fullpage.
I found that curious.  Of course, my wife was delighted! Her  'minipic' was the title picture... LOL
   
   
 

« Reply #10 on: June 24, 2007, 17:48 »
0
LOL Tom...I thought maybe my eyesight had deteriorated from reviewing so many photos that maybe my brain was starting to be affected.  ;-)

« Reply #11 on: June 24, 2007, 19:54 »
0
Ian.

Do you have a link to your portfolio. I like checking out other peoples' images

Dave

ianhlnd

  • tough men are pussys
« Reply #12 on: June 25, 2007, 01:06 »
0
Dave, just google my screen name, ianhlnd and then, show all results.  Not a large or impressive group of photos, probably featurepics has the largest number.  Most of my work goes to proprietary clients.  I'm a bit eclectic when it comes to posting, depending on where I am, and access to the web. 

By the way, I don't know where else to put this, but I've been in conversations with a producer who may want to pitch a "reality" type program of my voyages.  Something about "Boomers" doing their thing, off into the wild, fulfilling lifelong dreams, last gasp,  etc, etc.    *, why didn't this happen 20 years earlier? ;D ;D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
4673 Views
Last post September 07, 2006, 06:57
by jjneff
Love

Started by Dreamstime News Microstock News

0 Replies
2079 Views
Last post February 12, 2007, 10:10
by Dreamstime News
6 Replies
3823 Views
Last post June 03, 2007, 09:49
by scrappinstacy
8 Replies
4799 Views
Last post August 04, 2008, 03:53
by Dreamframer
4 Replies
2016 Views
Last post March 02, 2009, 16:38
by Dreamframer

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle