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.

We're with ya, bro!   

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

=tom

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. 

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.   

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
   
   
 

Ian.

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

Dave