Author Topic: How do you deal with increased levels of rejections? (Read 18746 times)

melastmohican · « **on:** August 11, 2010, 12:33 »

I usually try second option but recently I tend to ignore cause same photos are sent and different sites got different criteria.

sharpshot · « **Reply #1 on:** August 11, 2010, 12:53 »

With all sites other than DT, I try harder to upload better quality images. With DT, I have stopped uploading for now. Haven't ever really had a problem with rejections until the last 6 months with DT.

cthoman · « **Reply #2 on:** August 11, 2010, 12:57 »

Mostly inaudible muttering of various curse words?

disorderly · « **Reply #3 on:** August 11, 2010, 13:24 »

Lately I've had seriously inconsistent reviews at Shutterstock: one batch will get 100% rejections, and the next batch from the same session will get 100% acceptance. After making changes to my workflow with no change, I concluded that there's a really tough reviewer out there and another one who's really easy on me. So I've taken to submitting at specific times of the day in hope that I'll hit the more forgiving one. Or maybe it's all a coincidence. Or maybe I'm the victim of a psychological experiment designed to drive me mad. One of those.

gaja · « **Reply #4 on:** August 11, 2010, 14:01 »

Quote from: cthoman on August 11, 2010, 12:57

Mostly inaudible muttering of various curse words?

+1, except that my curse words are very audible.

ap · « **Reply #5 on:** August 11, 2010, 14:32 »

if the reviewers have been overly capricious, ie 100% rejection/100% acceptance at different times and i've finally had enough, i start to reupload my earliest rejected files. guess what? oftentimes they are accepted and actually sells. this is true for 123 and ss. this leads me to believe that there is no uniformity of standards among reviews or reviewers.

jcpjr · « **Reply #6 on:** August 11, 2010, 14:39 »

What gets me are the rejections I get from FT and the same images are accepted at SS and IS and selling well....what are thinking?

vonkara · « **Reply #7 on:** August 11, 2010, 15:36 »

Quote from: melastmohican on August 11, 2010, 12:33

I usually try second option but recently I tend to ignore cause same photos are sent and different sites got different criteria.

Maybe you should try to stop uploading and work on your side. Since you have almost 4 times more images than sales on Dreamstime, it wouldn't be time wasted

RacePhoto · « **Reply #8 on:** August 11, 2010, 15:41 »

Quote from: melastmohican on August 11, 2010, 12:33

I usually try second option but recently I tend to ignore cause same photos are sent and different sites got different criteria.

I'm willing to bet that the first day I went to the other forum, before I found this one (or maybe before it existed?) people were asking the same questions. Not that you are wrong or that I disagree, but that reviews have been inconsistent and rejections have been different according to agency, for a long time. Maybe it's getting worse?

I don't know if the levels have gone up because my way of dealing with unusual and odd rejections was to ignore them and move on. Yes I found that rejected images on a couple of sites, sold fine on others.

My eventual answer was ShutterStock and iStock and drop the rest. I seem to have a understanding of what those two want and sell of my particular interests, and the reviews have been consistent enough that I can guess ahead what will be rejected and why. Or just don't send in something that they won't take and save it for later. I don't have images from one type or style accepted one week and then rejected the next, or a month later have them say "we don't take this type of mater, it doesn't sell well" when it's just been accepted and sells there!

Let me put it another way. If I can't get images accepted and the agency doesn't want them, I can't sell them? Why bother submitting them, having them rejected and then selling them on another site. I'll just skip the extra work and only sell on a couple of sites.

The other option that many people have chosen is, send em in, if they get rejected, tough luck, they will sell somewhere else. The ones that get through are up for sale. Forget about rejections because the agency decides what they want and don't want, not us. Complaining or watching the irrational QC and getting upset, changes nothing.

My choice was vote with my feet and leave. Anyone who stays with any agency needs to accept the policies, reviews and the way that agency does business. I pretty convinced that those are the two options available.

Oh wait, option three is always approved:

Quote from: Anita Potter on August 11, 2010, 16:26

I'll usually blurt out "What the *bleep* ever"...

Anita Potter · « **Reply #9 on:** August 11, 2010, 16:26 »

I'll usually blurt out "What the *bleep* ever" and move on to the next image I want to create. I deal with 8 agencies right now. They all get mostly the same stuff they take them great they don't...oh well. I don't believe I've ever had one image rejected across the board on all sites.

Try to do your best that's all you can do.

louoates · « **Reply #10 on:** August 11, 2010, 17:07 »

I just think about the image that IS rejected over a year ago that was a good seller at other sites. On a whim I resubmitted it to IS with no changes and it was accepted. It is now my number 2 best seller at IS and will probably be number 1 in a few more weeks.

rubyroo · « **Reply #11 on:** August 11, 2010, 17:57 »

Quote from: jcpjr on August 11, 2010, 14:39

What gets me are the rejections I get from FT and the same images are accepted at SS and IS and selling well....what are thinking?

Yes... I was thinking about the FT factor after joining this poll. With SS and iStock, I've appealed decisions and had them reversed. With FT, I gave up trying a long time ago and just live with it. My acceptance rate at FT is much lower than at SS and iStock. I can't be bothered to try to figure it out any more.

oxman · « **Reply #12 on:** August 17, 2010, 01:25 »

I just realize the reviewers are over worked and many are not very good. I've had images rejected at IS for all sorts of odd things and submitted them later on (even NO RESUBMIT images) and they were accepted and doing well. Some rejects deserved it and i just mumble and agree... and move on.

cmcderm1 · « **Reply #13 on:** August 18, 2010, 18:53 »

Drink Heavily. YooHoo Chocolate Drink preferably!!!

luissantos84 · « **Reply #14 on:** August 18, 2010, 19:10 »

Quote from: Vonkara on August 11, 2010, 15:36

Quote from: melastmohican on August 11, 2010, 12:33
I usually try second option but recently I tend to ignore cause same photos are sent and different sites got different criteria.

Maybe you should try to stop uploading and work on your side. Since you have almost 4 times more images than sales on Dreamstime, it wouldn't be time wasted

I love your comments, you must be a lot of fun to hang around

There are two or three things you have for sure: modesty, self confidence! (can't wait to hear the 3rd from yourself)

pet_chia · « **Reply #15 on:** August 18, 2010, 22:24 »

I go along at a merry rate, and every so often ... BOOM! The keyword monster gets his or her hands on my files in the review queue. Someone with the intelligence of a brick and about as much imagination. Always happens after about half of a series of similar shots has been approved with the same set of keywords (by a sane person). I understand that not everyone has the expertise to understand the connection between certain objects/themes/concepts because nobody is an expert in every field ... but when the concept has been explained in detail in the photo description then I assume that the reviewer is either stubborn as a mule, or else is non-English speaking and has no time for pasting into "google translate."

My response ... cut back the keywords to the absolute minimum that even a moron could not misinterpret ... [indoors, one person, well dressed, looking at camera, studio shot] ... get them approved, and add the keywords back later.

I do this for a while, then I forget how painful it was to re-upload, and I slowly start adding more keywords to the initial upload getting more and more detailed until ... BOOM!

takestock · « **Reply #16 on:** August 19, 2010, 16:12 »

It's tough, but I just get up, get on with it, be a little more careful
And - keep believing in your work!

ShadySue · « **Reply #17 on:** August 21, 2010, 04:41 »

I'm sitting back and licking my wounds. I went from >90% acceptance at iStock (after the first few months, not overall) to 50% (mostly for 'bad light', i.e. natural rainforest light). That, combined with poor sales of almost everything I uploaded in the last 18 months, has totally knocked me for six. I'm clearly not shooting what buyers want. ost of my selling images are from before I knew about iStock. So I seem not to be learning anything.
Plus, two images that I scouted came back with reference to the time of day I'd taken the photos. Their assessment was very pleasant, but totally 'out' as to the time of day, and I couldn't understand it, until I noticed that the time on the photos bore no relation to the actual time, as I hadn't changed the clock on the camera (since I don't know when, as it wasn't UK time either!). Besides, in the natural world, you have to work with the wildlife and their natural daily cycle.

(Vide also uprezzing rejections when you've combined two images, even when you've written that in the description.)

suwanneeredhead · « **Reply #18 on:** August 21, 2010, 15:27 »

I know my increased rejections are caused by my camera becoming old, outdated, noisy... its not just the camera, it's the standards at the agencies that are slowly becoming higher and higher as the quality of the work begins to reflect the new cameras and techniques. I understand that as time goes on, I have to upgrade my own materials and skills to keep up with it. It's been that way since I began in microstock 5 years ago. Of course when I get rejections I have to stomp and scream and get angry, but that's just the red-headed Irish Leo in me. Then I calm down and say, "okay time to buy a new camera and upgrade to PS5."

Until then I illustrate. I rarely get rejections on my illustrations.

@pet_chia, the keyword Nazi, LOL... yeah I know what you mean, but as I have been doing this for a long time, I see a pattern, there are two keyword philosophies: One is that you just use keywords that apply to the image literally, i.e. a book, a flower, a table. The more "liberal" philosophy about keywords is to use conceptual words, ones that are more a stretch of the imagination, or ones that could speak to the potential use of the image, such as a brochure or report cover, or what not. I think the stock agencies more appreciate the first way to do it (only use words that apply to the image itself), and some reviewers probably do not appreciate all the gazillion "potential uses" that we think of to use as keywords. Plus, there is an insane amount of keyword spamming going on, I think the worst patterns I see of that is by the people that "purchase" their keywords from a keywording service. I'm sure the reviewers are overwhelmed... as a buyer I know I am, I can rarely find just what I want from all of the junk keywords that I come across.

In other words if you get a keyword rejection, be glad its not a technical rejection that you won't be able to fix, just pare them down as much as you can and resubmit.

lefty · « **Reply #19 on:** August 21, 2010, 19:57 »

Accept fact that always will have one dumb reviewer who reject work even after whole bunch approved by others. Accept it most likely new reviewer will mule mentality and no clue of rejection reason. Aceept subjective rejection reason is totally subjective so resubmit later hope regular reasonable reviewers will pick up your resubmit and then of course approval second time.
Accept too that lazy reviewer don't select correct rejection reason. Just big time
mule . But tomorrow a different reviewer will most likely approve same picture.

djpadavona · « **Reply #20 on:** August 21, 2010, 20:53 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 21, 2010, 04:41

I'm sitting back and licking my wounds. I went from >90% acceptance at iStock (after the first few months, not overall) to 50% (mostly for 'bad light', i.e. natural rainforest light). That, combined with poor sales of almost everything I uploaded in the last 18 months, has totally knocked me for six. I'm clearly not shooting what buyers want. ost of my selling images are from before I knew about iStock. So I seem not to be learning anything.

You could have put my name in place of yours in the author portion of this, Sue. I too went from a very consistent 80-90% acceptance rate dating back to late 2008, to about 50% lately. And yes, most of my rejections are for "lighting." I was yipping about it in one of the IS forums

while probably ticking off the admins. Then I noticed my site mail had a message, and it was from a Diamond exclusive whose port pretty much makes my mouth water. He/she mentioned the same thing...their acceptance rate was down to about 50% the last few months and almost every rejection is for "lighting."

So standards have sky rocketed, and I'm honestly at a loss for what they are looking for these days. I just have to shoot twice as many images to get the number I had envisioned online. It is what it is. Once, just once, I'd love to sit down with a reviewer and look over their shoulder while they accept/reject my photos. Not so I can argue with them, but so I can ask them exactly what it is they are looking for and learn something. I think that would be far more valuable than the critique forum, where you can guarantee everyone will find something different that they like or hate about your image. It would be awesome to hear a reviewer say, "I would have done this or that with your image to get it to pop." Obviously it can never happen - just too many images for them to review. It's just that after 4 years of countless rejections from several agencies, I can count on 1 hand the number of times I learned something from their response.

Digital66 · « **Reply #21 on:** August 21, 2010, 23:12 »

Quote from: suwanneeredhead on August 21, 2010, 15:27

I know my increased rejections are caused by my camera becoming old, outdated, noisy... its not just the camera, it's the standards at the agencies that are slowly becoming higher and higher as the quality of the work begins to reflect the new cameras and techniques. I understand that as time goes on, I have to upgrade my own materials and skills to keep up with it. It's been that way since I began in microstock 5 years ago. Of course when I get rejections I have to stomp and scream and get angry, but that's just the red-headed Irish Leo in me. Then I calm down and say, "okay time to buy a new camera and upgrade to PS5."

Blaming rejections on the camera?

Is it just a point&shoot camera or a good digital SLR in bad conditions?

If it is an old but good digital SLR and in good conditions, then it's not the camera. Even with today's standards.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #22 on:** August 21, 2010, 23:38 »

If the rejections are legit, I work on improving mt skills.

With IS I find that most of the time the reviewer was right and I overlooked something. After I correct it, they accept it. But not always. Sometimes they seem to use certian types of rejections (e.g. lighting) to say something isn't siutable for stock.

For other sites I've worked with in the past if the rejections were inconsistent or unjustified I'd use some choice profanility and ignore them.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #23 on:** August 22, 2010, 02:50 »

I try to improve my work. It's not easy because improvement comes in jumps rather than as steady progress. When I do manage to climb up to another level, my rejection rate drops significantly.

Constant efforts to improve lighting, composition and processing skills will lead to a reduced level of rejections. Moaning about how stupid the reviewers are will lead to ever higher rejections until nothing you submit is good enough to pass.

My rejection rate on the major agencies is currently about 15%-20% so I still have a lot of work to do to bring it down, though at one time it was 40%-plus. What's yours?

lagereek · « **Reply #24 on:** August 22, 2010, 03:20 »

Well to deal with it is no problem at all, if a shot is bad or technically wrong it should be dumped. Having said that, Im making myself a promise. Im not going to entertain sites anymore if they show what I call untrained, uneducated reviewing. I dont want some half-assed part-timer reviewing my shots.
This summer Ive seen such piss-poor editing, obviously from summer staff with total lack of the English language that you get more out of it in a burger bar.

Im not wasting my time any further with total dilletants.

Xalanx · « **Reply #25 on:** August 22, 2010, 04:23 »

Quote from: lagereek on August 22, 2010, 03:20

Im not going to entertain sites anymore if they show what I call untrained, uneducated reviewing.

Every single site has these, every now and then. You'll be left without any options soon

As someone pointed earlier, there is a little Attila at SS, that absurdly rejects most part of a batch. I find it quite difficult to deal with this kind of idiots, since a lot of us put some effort and time into shooting and post-processing. Normally my approval rate at SS is somewhere around 95-100%, but when this guy enters his shift it drops below 50%.

lagereek · « **Reply #26 on:** August 22, 2010, 04:56 »

Well I dont get many rejects from any of my sites and youre right ofcourse, all sites suffer these this. Its amazing really. Ofcourse there are good and bad reviewers but the ones that cant look any further then noise and artifacts, technical aspects, etc, they should really move on.

FD · « **Reply #27 on:** August 22, 2010, 07:53 »

Quote from: lagereek on August 22, 2010, 03:20

Im making myself a promise. Im not going to entertain sites anymore if they show what I call untrained, uneducated reviewing. I dont want some half-assed part-timer reviewing my shots.
This summer Ive seen such piss-poor editing, obviously from summer staff with total lack of the English language that you get more out of it in a burger bar.

+ 1

fullvalue · « **Reply #28 on:** August 22, 2010, 09:08 »

If you have had an entire series rejected, try Scouting one of them and ask for clarification on the rejection reason. It might surprise you.

louoates · « **Reply #29 on:** August 22, 2010, 09:31 »

Quote from: lagereek on August 22, 2010, 03:20

Well to deal with it is no problem at all, if a shot is bad or technically wrong it should be dumped. Having said that, Im making myself a promise. Im not going to entertain sites anymore if they show what I call untrained, uneducated reviewing. I dont want some half-assed part-timer reviewing my shots.
This summer Ive seen such piss-poor editing, obviously from summer staff with total lack of the English language that you get more out of it in a burger bar.

Im not wasting my time any further with total dilletants.

Nicely summarized overview of the microstock business. But the word is "dilettantes."
Just accept this business for what it is and pass the mustard please.

lefty · « **Reply #30 on:** August 22, 2010, 10:24 »

Quote from: FD-regular on August 22, 2010, 07:53

Quote from: lagereek on August 22, 2010, 03:20
Im making myself a promise. Im not going to entertain sites anymore if they show what I call untrained, uneducated reviewing. I dont want some half-assed part-timer reviewing my shots.
This summer Ive seen such piss-poor editing, obviously from summer staff with total lack of the English language that you get more out of it in a burger bar.
+ 1

+2

Quote from: fullvalue on August 22, 2010, 09:08

If you have had an entire series rejected, try Scouting one of them and ask for clarification on the rejection reason. It might surprise you.

Only problem is by time you get revaluation redemption, you grow long beard and die of old age .

lagereek · « **Reply #31 on:** August 22, 2010, 11:24 »

Quote from: louoates on August 22, 2010, 09:31

Quote from: lagereek on August 22, 2010, 03:20
Well to deal with it is no problem at all, if a shot is bad or technically wrong it should be dumped. Having said that, Im making myself a promise. Im not going to entertain sites anymore if they show what I call untrained, uneducated reviewing. I dont want some half-assed part-timer reviewing my shots.
This summer Ive seen such piss-poor editing, obviously from summer staff with total lack of the English language that you get more out of it in a burger bar.

Im not wasting my time any further with total dilletants.

Nicely summarized overview of the microstock business. But the word is "dilettantes."
Just accept this business for what it is and pass the mustard please.

Thanks for the correction mate, I like that word! especially when ranting.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #32 on:** August 22, 2010, 12:36 »

Quote from: Xalanx on August 22, 2010, 04:23

Quote from: lagereek on August 22, 2010, 03:20
Im not going to entertain sites anymore if they show what I call untrained, uneducated reviewing.

Every single site has these, every now and then. You'll be left without any options soon
As someone pointed earlier, there is a little Attila at SS, that absurdly rejects most part of a batch. I find it quite difficult to deal with this kind of idiots, since a lot of us put some effort and time into shooting and post-processing. Normally my approval rate at SS is somewhere around 95-100%, but when this guy enters his shift it drops below 50%.

I don't think it is very likely that there is one reviewer who rejects massively while the others are being "reasonable". I'm sure his figures would soon get him pulled up by the management. I don't suppose it is possible that you might occasionally produce a duff batch?

Anyone who doesn't want his pictures reviewed (not edited, btw) by part-timers probably shouldn't submit anywhere. Last I heard the reviewing process was generally done on a part-time piecework basis, it may differ at different sites. The reviewers are told to check for visible defects and reject if they find them, they are not meant to be art critics letting this and that noisy, blurry photo through because it was so artistic the way the camera was waved at distant street lights during a long exposure. Flickr's always available for displaying priceless works of art.

Imagine what a mess the collections would be in if they were awash with nice-looking, artistic thumbnails that that were full of compression artifacts, wild CA and chromatic noise. How long would buyers stick around? The inspectors' job is to provide the assurance that if buyers like what they see then they can buy it knowing that the technical quality won't let them - or their customers - down. Imagine spending hours with a client selecting thumbnails for a poster campaign only to find that not one of them can be enlarged to that degree

Sometimes reviews are wrong - I just got one where the reviewer didn't understand the colour of the object and thought it was a WB error - but the critique forums show that nine times out of ten the mistake has been made by the whinging photographer, not by the reviewer. So the comments about idiots and morons are generally more applicable to those making them.

FD · « **Reply #33 on:** August 22, 2010, 13:56 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 22, 2010, 12:36

Anyone who doesn't want his pictures reviewed (not edited, btw) by part-timers probably shouldn't submit anywhere. Last I heard the reviewing process was generally done on a part-time piecework basis, it may differ at different sites.

You also have to take into account that reviewing is a very lousy job and the pay has gone down from 10c to 6c the past 3 years. Excuse: the economy. CanStockPhoto reviewers get 4c. To have 8$/hr, you'll have to review 128 images per hour, or 2+ per minute (included the wait for the d/l and peeping for logos). If you pay for Attila's, you'll get Attila's.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #34 on:** August 22, 2010, 14:06 »

Quote from: FD-regular on August 22, 2010, 13:56

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 22, 2010, 12:36
Anyone who doesn't want his pictures reviewed (not edited, btw) by part-timers probably shouldn't submit anywhere. Last I heard the reviewing process was generally done on a part-time piecework basis, it may differ at different sites.
You also have to take into account that reviewing is a very lousy job and the pay has gone down from 10c to 6c the past 3 years. Excuse: the economy. CanStockPhoto reviewers get 4c. To have 8$/hr, you'll have to review 128 images per hour, or 2+ per minute (included the wait for the d/l and peeping for logos). If you pay for Attila's, you'll get Attila's.

I know a couple of people who learned a lot by doing it for a while and probably improved a lot as photographers as a result, but the common opinion was it was very hard work for very little cash (and that was probably before the pay cut). We really ought to be grateful to them for getting out images online rather than slagging them off as being incompetent, half-assed, amateur morons who aren't fit to judge our work. Imagine the crap they have to wade through. Rinder put a long post on SS about what it is like to review.

Xalanx · « **Reply #35 on:** August 22, 2010, 14:07 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 22, 2010, 12:36

Quote from: Xalanx on August 22, 2010, 04:23
Quote from: lagereek on August 22, 2010, 03:20
Im not going to entertain sites anymore if they show what I call untrained, uneducated reviewing.

Every single site has these, every now and then. You'll be left without any options soon
As someone pointed earlier, there is a little Attila at SS, that absurdly rejects most part of a batch. I find it quite difficult to deal with this kind of idiots, since a lot of us put some effort and time into shooting and post-processing. Normally my approval rate at SS is somewhere around 95-100%, but when this guy enters his shift it drops below 50%.

I don't think it is very likely that there is one reviewer who rejects massively while the others are being "reasonable". I'm sure his figures would soon get him pulled up by the management. I don't suppose it is possible that you might occasionally produce a duff batch?

Anyone who doesn't want his pictures reviewed (not edited, btw) by part-timers probably shouldn't submit anywhere. Last I heard the reviewing process was generally done on a part-time piecework basis, it may differ at different sites. The reviewers are told to check for visible defects and reject if they find them, they are not meant to be art critics letting this and that noisy, blurry photo through because it was so artistic the way the camera was waved at distant street lights during a long exposure. Flickr's always available for displaying priceless works of art.

Imagine what a mess the collections would be in if they were awash with nice-looking, artistic thumbnails that that were full of compression artifacts, wild CA and chromatic noise. How long would buyers stick around? The inspectors' job is to provide the assurance that if buyers like what they see then they can buy it knowing that the technical quality won't let them - or their customers - down. Imagine spending hours with a client selecting thumbnails for a poster campaign only to find that not one of them can be enlarged to that degree

Sometimes reviews are wrong - I just got one where the reviewer didn't understand the colour of the object and thought it was a WB error - but the critique forums show that nine times out of ten the mistake has been made by the whinging photographer, not by the reviewer. So the comments about idiots and morons are generally more applicable to those making them.

Are you by any chance the little Attila @SS? The one that rejects an entire batch of studio shots produced with pro Elinchrom strobes and a full frame camera at ISO 100, for lightning / white balance? Or noise? You seem to take offense too much in this, dude. Which would mean you fit into my first comment - it would be a pity.
I assume that a vast majority on this forum are way past showing an image for getting critique about technical aspects. I was not talking about images with CA or chroma noise or whatever, since I don't make such photos. And therefore my complains were not regarding questionable shots, but perfectly acceptable quality imagery.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #36 on:** August 22, 2010, 14:31 »

Quote from: Xalanx on August 22, 2010, 14:07

Are you by any chance the little Attila @SS? The one that rejects an entire batch of studio shots produced with pro Elinchrom strobes and a full frame camera at ISO 100, for lightning / white balance? Or noise? You seem to take offense too much in this, dude. Which would mean you fit into my first comment - it would be a pity.
I assume that a vast majority on this forum are way past showing an image for getting critique about technical aspects. I was not talking about images with CA or chroma noise or whatever, since I don't make such photos. And therefore my complains were not regarding questionable shots, but perfectly acceptable quality imagery.

Wow! Sensitive flower, aren't you? Well, let me tell you, I have a 5D Mk2, Elinchrome strobes, ISO 100 as standard and I still [expletive deleted by the system - fancy that!] -it up sometimes. In case you don't know, it is the photographer not the equipment that produces the results. Under-expose at ISO 100 full frame and you can easily get noise. Put your lights in the wrong place or get the balance wrong and you can still get bad lighting.

FYI, I have never reviewed a photo for the micros (or anywhere else), so I am not the Attila you seek. I just happen to respect the efforts of the poor sods who do and who are repeatedly slagged off but can never defend themselves. And the slaggers-off often have limited experience but think they are great just because they spent some cash on kit.

You don't make pictures with CA? What lens do you shoot with? The Canon 24-70 f2.8L makes CA on full frame, I've just been killing it on my latest shots using the proprietory software. If you are sticking with Canon L primes then you probably do not get CA. But maybe you just don't recognise it (after I was ticked-off by an incredibly marginal CA rejection I showed it to a former inspector who actually couldn't see it - but it was there all the same).

My comments about art photos/Flickr weren't aimed at you, they were a response to Lagereek's desire that inspectors should overlook defects and look at the wider picture.

I've just put up the little dials next to my name, so you can judge whether I have some idea or what I am talking about.

lagereek · « **Reply #37 on:** August 22, 2010, 14:32 »

Quote from: Xalanx on August 22, 2010, 14:07

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 22, 2010, 12:36
Quote from: Xalanx on August 22, 2010, 04:23
Quote from: lagereek on August 22, 2010, 03:20
Im not going to entertain sites anymore if they show what I call untrained, uneducated reviewing.

Every single site has these, every now and then. You'll be left without any options soon
As someone pointed earlier, there is a little Attila at SS, that absurdly rejects most part of a batch. I find it quite difficult to deal with this kind of idiots, since a lot of us put some effort and time into shooting and post-processing. Normally my approval rate at SS is somewhere around 95-100%, but when this guy enters his shift it drops below 50%.

I don't think it is very likely that there is one reviewer who rejects massively while the others are being "reasonable". I'm sure his figures would soon get him pulled up by the management. I don't suppose it is possible that you might occasionally produce a duff batch?

Anyone who doesn't want his pictures reviewed (not edited, btw) by part-timers probably shouldn't submit anywhere. Last I heard the reviewing process was generally done on a part-time piecework basis, it may differ at different sites. The reviewers are told to check for visible defects and reject if they find them, they are not meant to be art critics letting this and that noisy, blurry photo through because it was so artistic the way the camera was waved at distant street lights during a long exposure. Flickr's always available for displaying priceless works of art.

Imagine what a mess the collections would be in if they were awash with nice-looking, artistic thumbnails that that were full of compression artifacts, wild CA and chromatic noise. How long would buyers stick around? The inspectors' job is to provide the assurance that if buyers like what they see then they can buy it knowing that the technical quality won't let them - or their customers - down. Imagine spending hours with a client selecting thumbnails for a poster campaign only to find that not one of them can be enlarged to that degree

Sometimes reviews are wrong - I just got one where the reviewer didn't understand the colour of the object and thought it was a WB error - but the critique forums show that nine times out of ten the mistake has been made by the whinging photographer, not by the reviewer. So the comments about idiots and morons are generally more applicable to those making them.

Are you by any chance the little Attila @SS? The one that rejects an entire batch of studio shots produced with pro Elinchrom strobes and a full frame camera at ISO 100, for lightning / white balance? Or noise? You seem to take offense too much in this, dude. Which would mean you fit into my first comment - it would be a pity.
I assume that a vast majority on this forum are way past showing an image for getting critique about technical aspects. I was not talking about images with CA or chroma noise or whatever, since I don't make such photos. And therefore my complains were not regarding questionable shots, but perfectly acceptable quality imagery.

Agree! I think BaldricksTrouses has got the message mixed up or answering the wrong post but just to clarify to him what xalanx just said, we are not talking here about truly bad images, they should indeed get thrown away.
In many cases when the images comes back asking you do re-do your keywording its even darned obvious the reviewer is not even familiar with the English language, also, if we are going to have just heavy, generic keywording and no conceptual words, well? we might as well sign on for unemployment or go on the dole.

Xalanx · « **Reply #38 on:** August 22, 2010, 14:38 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 22, 2010, 14:31

Quote from: Xalanx on August 22, 2010, 14:07
Are you by any chance the little Attila @SS? The one that rejects an entire batch of studio shots produced with pro Elinchrom strobes and a full frame camera at ISO 100, for lightning / white balance? Or noise? You seem to take offense too much in this, dude. Which would mean you fit into my first comment - it would be a pity.
I assume that a vast majority on this forum are way past showing an image for getting critique about technical aspects. I was not talking about images with CA or chroma noise or whatever, since I don't make such photos. And therefore my complains were not regarding questionable shots, but perfectly acceptable quality imagery.

Wow! Sensitive flower, aren't you? Well, let me tell you, I have a 5D Mk2, Elinchrome strobes, ISO 100 as standard and I still [expletive deleted by the system - fancy that!] -it up sometimes. In case you don't know, it is the photographer not the equipment that produces the results. Under-expose at ISO 100 full frame and you can easily get noise. Put your lights in the wrong place or get the balance wrong and you can still get bad lighting.

FYI, I have never reviewed a photo for the micros (or anywhere else), so I am not the Attila you seek. I just happen to respect the efforts of the poor sods who do and who are repeatedly slagged off but can never defend themselves. And the slaggers-off often have limited experience but think they are great just because they spent some cash on kit.

You don't make pictures with CA? What lens do you shoot with? The Canon 24-70 f2.8L makes CA on full frame, I've just been killing it on my latest shots using the proprietory software. If you are sticking with Canon L primes then you probably do not get CA. But maybe you just don't recognise it (after I was ticked-off by an incredibly marginal CA rejection I showed it to a former inspector who actually couldn't see it - but it was there all the same).

My comments about art photos/Flickr weren't aimed at you, they were a response to Lagereek's desire that inspectors should overlook defects and look at the wider picture.

I've just put up the little dials next to my name, so you can judge whether I have some idea or what I am talking about.

Baldrick (or Trousers), those dials could only mean you are much longer in the game than a lot others, nothing more. As you may already know, those who started earlier in this game have a HUGE advantage.
Nevertheless, I am not questioning your skills, at least not without seeing your port. Your setup is rather similar to mine, except the 24-70mm which I regard as being the crappiest of all L lenses. Yes, I have only primes, just one zoom. And yes, the 17-40 has CAs at the edge of the frame in some extreme situations, to the wider end of the focal length, this is also common to the 16-35mm. I just don't upload shots with CA, that's all.
...
If I were you I'd probably get the 24-105 instead...

LE: oh and the one that blows studio shots because of wrong arranging the lights has still a lot to learn. Why for the life of me would anyone underexpose a studio shot?!

Peace.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #39 on:** August 22, 2010, 14:45 »

Quote from: lagereek on August 22, 2010, 14:32

Quote from: Xalanx on August 22, 2010, 14:07
]I assume that a vast majority on this forum are way past showing an image for getting critique about technical aspects. I was not talking about images with CA or chroma noise or whatever, since I don't make such photos. And therefore my complains were not regarding questionable shots, but perfectly acceptable quality imagery.

Agree! I think BaldricksTrouses has got the message mixed up or answering the wrong post but just to clarify to him what xalanx just said, we are not talking here about truly bad images, they should indeed get thrown away.
In many cases when the images comes back asking you do re-do your keywording its even darned obvious the reviewer is not even familiar with the English language, also, if we are going to have just heavy, generic keywording and no conceptual words, well? we might as well sign on for unemployment or go on the dole.

I assume you are talking about IS keywording stuff. I have never yet had an iS rejection JUST for keywords. It is like they put that in to tell you they are not entirely happy on photos they are rejecting for other reasons. The iS controlled vocabulary is a nightmare, because it pushes you into using inappropriate keywords by not having accurate ones available. Are you getting keyword-only rejections? If so, you are probably pushing the "creativity" of your keywording well into the world of spam. You posted elsewhere about how much better the searches were in the days of film, but then the keywords were written for you and probably didn't include your "concepts". Who knows.

How about you guys posting your unacceptable rejections somewhere where we can see them at a proper size, together with the reason for rejection? Then we can see if you have solid grounds for your protests or are just whining about not making the grade the same as loads of others on the SS forums. And I know you are diamond, Lagereek, but so am I - and somewhat ahead of you. I wish I had your gears, though ;-)

lagereek · « **Reply #40 on:** August 22, 2010, 14:47 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 22, 2010, 14:31

Quote from: Xalanx on August 22, 2010, 14:07
Are you by any chance the little Attila @SS? The one that rejects an entire batch of studio shots produced with pro Elinchrom strobes and a full frame camera at ISO 100, for lightning / white balance? Or noise? You seem to take offense too much in this, dude. Which would mean you fit into my first comment - it would be a pity.
I assume that a vast majority on this forum are way past showing an image for getting critique about technical aspects. I was not talking about images with CA or chroma noise or whatever, since I don't make such photos. And therefore my complains were not regarding questionable shots, but perfectly acceptable quality imagery.

Wow! Sensitive flower, aren't you? Well, let me tell you, I have a 5D Mk2, Elinchrome strobes, ISO 100 as standard and I still [expletive deleted by the system - fancy that!] -it up sometimes. In case you don't know, it is the photographer not the equipment that produces the results. Under-expose at ISO 100 full frame and you can easily get noise. Put your lights in the wrong place or get the balance wrong and you can still get bad lighting.

FYI, I have never reviewed a photo for the micros (or anywhere else), so I am not the Attila you seek. I just happen to respect the efforts of the poor sods who do and who are repeatedly slagged off but can never defend themselves. And the slaggers-off often have limited experience but think they are great just because they spent some cash on kit.

You don't make pictures with CA? What lens do you shoot with? The Canon 24-70 f2.8L makes CA on full frame, I've just been killing it on my latest shots using the proprietory software. If you are sticking with Canon L primes then you probably do not get CA. But maybe you just don't recognise it (after I was ticked-off by an incredibly marginal CA rejection I showed it to a former inspector who actually couldn't see it - but it was there all the same).

My comments about art photos/Flickr weren't aimed at you, they were a response to Lagereek's desire that inspectors should overlook defects and look at the wider picture.

I've just put up the little dials next to my name, so you can judge whether I have some idea or what I am talking about.

Well thanks mate but let me tell you, like many here Im some 20 years past presenting pics for critiques, Ive worked with Getty since 93, maincore RM sector as well, I use a number of cameras, HD3, Nikon D3X and God knows, Ive done Advertising and Industrial dayrate shooting for 25 years, been in numerous panels judging competition, helped Stones-Worldwide between 87-90 in editing and keywording. Sorry but I know my stuff, even blindfolded. Not bragging.

Back on topic. The entire problems lies in this and this fact alone: editors or reviewers must start to look further then just the technical kiddies stuff, thats for beginners. An editor should judge a picture by its commercial-value, artistic-value, saleabillity, etc, noise, artefacts and so on??? crap! thats what a teacher do in photocollege. NOT HERE.

best.

alias · « **Reply #41 on:** August 22, 2010, 14:52 »

On the one side you are calling for higher standards - on the other you are complaining about rejections

Fact is that rising standards is about all of us (inspection and curation included) rapidly getting better at what we do. We all know more about how a file should look than we did even 18 months ago. And in an ever more saturated market why would standards not increase.

Fact is that it doesn't really matter how long anyone has been in the game since we are all learning everything together and simultaneously. The standards of nearly 20 years ago do not really count any more.

Rising standards also work to the advantage of people who are already on the inside.

Eg lighting needs to be better now than a year ago

lagereek · « **Reply #42 on:** August 22, 2010, 14:59 »

alias!
believe me and you can check out other posts, threads, etc, etc, Im ALL for raising standards! Ive said that hundreds of times, I would go even further, I would like to increase MP size as well, getting rid of the riff-raff clogging up just about every file there is but most unfortunately the agencies doesnt see it that way. Why? well for every hungry part-timer and weekend snapper whos images eventually will render in a sale: they earn dosh.

best.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #43 on:** August 22, 2010, 15:07 »

Quote from: Xalanx on August 22, 2010, 14:38

Baldrick (or Trousers), those dials could only mean you are much longer in the game than a lot others, nothing more. As you may already know, those who started earlier in this game have a HUGE advantage.
Nevertheless, I am not questioning your skills, at least not without seeing your port. Your setup is rather similar to mine, except the 24-70mm which I regard as being the crappiest of all L lenses. Yes, I have only primes, just one zoom. And yes, the 17-40 has CAs at the edge of the frame in some extreme situations, to the wider end of the focal length, this is also common to the 16-35mm. I just don't upload shots with CA, that's all.
...
If I were you I'd probably get the 24-105 instead...

LE: oh and the one that blows studio shots because of wrong arranging the lights has still a lot to learn. Why for the life of me would anyone underexpose a studio shot?!

Peace.

Yes, I've been in this for a long time, which is an advantage. No argument there.

You are absolutely way off if you think the 24-70 f2.8L is the worst lens in the line-up. The 24-70 is well regarded by almost everyone. The worst lens by a country mile is the 17-40 f4L and if you only see some aberration at the edges in extreme situations then you are missing what is there. It is probably the worst L lens Canon ever made, the distortion in the corners at the wide end is revolting and the CA in mildly demanding conditions beggars belief. On a crop sensor body it is probably better than the original 18-55 kit lens, but I'm not sure. To be honest, I think it was worse. But maybe my copy of it is bad.

There is no benefit in having the 24-105 over the 24-70 according to this: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml
and you lose a stop of speed, which is significant for focusing in lower light. You may notice that contrary to your observation, the 24-70 is described by Michael Reichman as being as fine a lens as was ever made for that focal range. My attempts to interpret MTF charts are amateurish, to say the least, but I think the chart is saying that the 24-70 is the better lens.

FD · « **Reply #44 on:** August 22, 2010, 15:20 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 22, 2010, 15:07

There is no benefit in having the 24-105 over the 24-70 according to this: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml
and you lose a stop of speed, which is significant for focusing in lower light. You may notice that contrary to your observation, the 24-70 is described by Michael Reichman as being as fine a lens as was ever made for that focal range. My attempts to interpret MTF charts are amateurish, to say the least, but I think the chart is saying that the 24-70 is the better lens.

I picked the 24-70 on a FF by reading the reviews. there are only 2 issues with it compared to the 24-105: weight that can unbalance your cam and just a little short for cropped portraits and close-ups. I was surprised by the fair amount of CA (peak hairs against white bg in models) but it's solved well by the DPP software that comes in-box with the 5DII. What dedicated software you use to get rid of the 24-70 CA?

alias · « **Reply #45 on:** August 22, 2010, 15:21 »

Quote from: lagereek on August 22, 2010, 14:59

alias!
believe me and you can check out other posts, threads, etc, etc, Im ALL for raising standards! Ive said that hundreds of times, I would go even further, I would like to increase MP size as well, getting rid of the riff-raff clogging up just about every file there is but most unfortunately the agencies doesnt see it that way. Why? well for every hungry part-timer and weekend snapper whos images eventually will render in a sale: they earn dosh.

best.

Raising standards means raising standards for everyone potentially. Higher standards means everyone gets more rejections. I don't see that it means more expensive equipment. You and the riff-raff the same.

I'm riff-raff.

No need to increase MP size since demand for large resolution is decreasing.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #46 on:** August 22, 2010, 15:24 »

Quote from: lagereek on August 22, 2010, 14:47

Back on topic. The entire problems lies in this and this fact alone: editors or reviewers must start to look further then just the technical kiddies stuff, thats for beginners. An editor should judge a picture by its commercial-value, artistic-value, saleabillity, etc, noise, artefacts and so on??? crap! thats what a teacher do in photocollege. NOT HERE.

best.

I don't doubt your experience and some of your stuff is stunning.

But, you haven't addressed how the collections will provide the required quality for designers if they do not, first and foremost, make sure that the pictures do not have noise and artifacts that make them unusable.

It seems that what you are saying is that YOU know the trade well enough to only submit photos with noise etc, if they have artistic value that means the noise doesn't matter. And maybe you do. But if noise no longer counts as a rejection reason, what about the millions of noise riddled files that will flood the collections? How will buyers like that?

The only way for the sites to succeed without looking for "kiddies stuff" is to throw all the "kiddies" out so only seasoned pros who can be relied on to understand the market can submit.

I do sometimes think that your posts suggest you wish the industry was still a closed circle, the way it used to be 20 years back.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #47 on:** August 22, 2010, 15:30 »

Quote from: FD-regular on August 22, 2010, 15:20

What dedicated software you use to get rid of the 24-70 CA?

DPP, same as you. But to be honest, I used the lens for years before I recognised the CA for what it was. It took a (how dare the ignorant moron refuse my pic) iStock rejection for me to come to recognise it and find out what to do.

Does DPP cure CA on jpg shots, too? I haven't checked.

PS: My excuse for uploading kiddie errors in the past is that I never did got to photo school so I learned the hard way - from inspectors.

lagereek · « **Reply #48 on:** August 22, 2010, 15:39 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 22, 2010, 15:24

Quote from: lagereek on August 22, 2010, 14:47

Back on topic. The entire problems lies in this and this fact alone: editors or reviewers must start to look further then just the technical kiddies stuff, thats for beginners. An editor should judge a picture by its commercial-value, artistic-value, saleabillity, etc, noise, artefacts and so on??? crap! thats what a teacher do in photocollege. NOT HERE.

best.

I don't doubt your experience and some of your stuff is stunning.

But, you haven't addressed how the collections will provide the required quality for designers if they do not, first and foremost, make sure that the pictures do not have noise and artifacts that make them unusable.

It seems that what you are saying is that YOU know the trade well enough to only submit photos with noise etc, if they have artistic value that means the noise doesn't matter. And maybe you do. But if noise no longer counts as a rejection reason, what about the millions of noise riddled files that will flood the collections? How will buyers like that?

The only way for the sites to succeed without looking for "kiddies stuff" is to throw all the "kiddies" out so only seasoned pros who can be relied on to understand the market can submit.

I do sometimes think that your posts suggest you wish the industry was still a closed circle, the way it used to be 20 years back.

Hi again!

Thanks for that. Well no I would not want to go back 20 years. Many of the people involved 15-20 years back were actually creatives themselves not computer people and maybe thats the differance?
Ofcourse I dont advocate noise, etc, ( mind the impressionists didnt do too bad with noise) my own shots are hardly ever taken above ISO 100 but technical exellence should go without saying, unfortunately todays editors I feel are staring themselves blind at just that, resulting in that any old shot as long as its technically sound is accepted into our files regardless of anything else.

I might be wrong in which case I step down but somehow this seems to be the case.

anyhow its good with a rant sometimes, isnt it.
'
best.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #49 on:** August 22, 2010, 15:44 »

Quote from: lagereek on August 22, 2010, 15:39

anyhow its good with a rant sometimes, isnt it.
'

Absolutely! I enjoy a good rant myself.

I did notice a slight problem with the riff-raff arguement though: if we cut out today's cheap crop-frame hoipolloi cameras then we need to dump all files of less than 15MP which, unfortunately, seems likely to extinguish those blue flames you have at iStock.

Hmmmm....

Xalanx · « **Reply #50 on:** August 22, 2010, 15:55 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 22, 2010, 15:07

Quote from: Xalanx on August 22, 2010, 14:38

Baldrick (or Trousers), those dials could only mean you are much longer in the game than a lot others, nothing more. As you may already know, those who started earlier in this game have a HUGE advantage.
Nevertheless, I am not questioning your skills, at least not without seeing your port. Your setup is rather similar to mine, except the 24-70mm which I regard as being the crappiest of all L lenses. Yes, I have only primes, just one zoom. And yes, the 17-40 has CAs at the edge of the frame in some extreme situations, to the wider end of the focal length, this is also common to the 16-35mm. I just don't upload shots with CA, that's all.
...
If I were you I'd probably get the 24-105 instead...

LE: oh and the one that blows studio shots because of wrong arranging the lights has still a lot to learn. Why for the life of me would anyone underexpose a studio shot?!

Peace.

Yes, I've been in this for a long time, which is an advantage. No argument there.

You are absolutely way off if you think the 24-70 f2.8L is the worst lens in the line-up. The 24-70 is well regarded by almost everyone. The worst lens by a country mile is the 17-40 f4L and if you only see some aberration at the edges in extreme situations then you are missing what is there. It is probably the worst L lens Canon ever made, the distortion in the corners at the wide end is revolting and the CA in mildly demanding conditions beggars belief. On a crop sensor body it is probably better than the original 18-55 kit lens, but I'm not sure. To be honest, I think it was worse. But maybe my copy of it is bad.

There is no benefit in having the 24-105 over the 24-70 according to this: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml
and you lose a stop of speed, which is significant for focusing in lower light. You may notice that contrary to your observation, the 24-70 is described by Michael Reichman as being as fine a lens as was ever made for that focal range. My attempts to interpret MTF charts are amateurish, to say the least, but I think the chart is saying that the 24-70 is the better lens.

Well then maybe I had a bad copy of 24-70, back then before moving to primes. I mean extreme distortion to the wide end and the worse CA I've seen on an L lens. On the other hand, the 17-40 is very good if you keep it above 20-24mm and f/8 - f/11. Which is exactly how I use it, only for landscapes. For everything else I have primes. But I think this subject is highly offtopic and there are proper boards for this.

Anyway, for further reference here are some sites worth reading:

TDP lens comparison
POTN lens sample photo archive
Photozone, obviously...

FD · « **Reply #51 on:** August 22, 2010, 22:23 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 22, 2010, 15:30

Does DPP cure CA on jpg shots, too? I haven't checked.

No. DPP is pretty useless for jpg. For RAW it's great. The CA is removed without any loss of sharpness.

lagereek · « **Reply #52 on:** August 23, 2010, 01:50 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 22, 2010, 15:44

Quote from: lagereek on August 22, 2010, 15:39
anyhow its good with a rant sometimes, isnt it.
'

Absolutely! I enjoy a good rant myself.

I did notice a slight problem with the riff-raff arguement though: if we cut out today's cheap crop-frame hoipolloi cameras then we need to dump all files of less than 15MP which, unfortunately, seems likely to extinguish those blue flames you have at iStock.

Hmmmm....

Hi!

No, 15 MPs is too steep, most dslrs are around 12, arent they? so you got to go with that. I mean Im not some kind of monster wanting to prevent people from executing their hobbie or whatever but somewhere you got to draw the line. At the moment the leading agencies have got between 5-10 million shots in their files and I bet you anything if Professional-editors went through these files we wouldnt be left with more then say 30% rest would be classified as irrelevant material. From a buyers point, wading through these files is a NIGHTMARE.
This is the result when setting commercial and artistic values aside and just concentrating on the technical merits, letting any old shot into files as long as its technically correct, not very clever is it?

Result is: in say 2 years time, you and I, Diamonds or not or whatever will hardly see any revenues at all from our works. Add to this that our new files and uploads gets thrown in among bazillions of stuff, never to be seen.

Im not telling you anything new here! this is what happend to the old Image-Bank, run by the late Stan Kanney, brillant business concept BUT in the end he took on too much ( 4 million 35-mil trannies in files) top-photographers, etc, and he was one of the first to use computer-files. He lost control it all becamré too big and he sold out to Getty.

Like everybody else here Im just trying to protect my own niche and position within the Micro because at this moment the entire Micro world seems a little bit wobbly. Wouldnt you say?

best. Christian

lagereek · « **Reply #53 on:** August 23, 2010, 02:43 »

Quote from: lagereek on August 23, 2010, 01:50

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 22, 2010, 15:44
Quote from: lagereek on August 22, 2010, 15:39
anyhow its good with a rant sometimes, isnt it.
'

Absolutely! I enjoy a good rant myself.

I did notice a slight problem with the riff-raff arguement though: if we cut out today's cheap crop-frame hoipolloi cameras then we need to dump all files of less than 15MP which, unfortunately, seems likely to extinguish those blue flames you have at iStock.

Hmmmm....

Hi!

Thats no problem on my next assignment I would just re-shoot at much higher MPs. No, 15 MPs is too steep, most dslrs are around 12, arent they? so you got to go with that. I mean Im not some kind of monster wanting to prevent people from executing their hobbie or whatever but somewhere you got to draw the line. At the moment the leading agencies have got between 5-10 million shots in their files and I bet you anything if Professional-editors went through these files we wouldnt be left with more then say 30% rest would be classified as irrelevant material. From a buyers point, wading through these files is a NIGHTMARE.
This is the result when setting commercial and artistic values aside and just concentrating on the technical merits, letting any old shot into files as long as its technically correct, not very clever is it?

Result is: in say 2 years time, you and I, Diamonds or not or whatever will hardly see any revenues at all from our works. Add to this that our new files and uploads gets thrown in among bazillions of stuff, never to be seen.

Im not telling you anything new here! this is what happend to the old Image-Bank, run by the late Stan Kanney, brillant business concept BUT in the end he took on too much ( 4 million 35-mil trannies in files) top-photographers, etc, and he was one of the first to use computer-files. He lost control it all becamré too big and he sold out to Getty.

Like everybody else here Im just trying to protect my own niche and position within the Micro because at this moment the entire Micro world seems a little bit wobbly. Wouldnt you say?

best. Christian

lefty · « **Reply #54 on:** August 23, 2010, 09:39 »

Back to topic

I decide to pair rejection with sales. If agency give me more sales , I accept rejection with good intention to improve. Proof is pudding because site that give me regular downloads and many times instant downloads with approval, then I respect reviewers know what they select.
Other hand, if I keep getting rejection and the approved stuff do not give me downloads, not instant downloads, not long time downloads, then I think reviewer
is talking through his other end.

Perspective work for me since my consistent uploads go to site with best pairing
of instant download with quick approval. You all know which site I talk about.

lefty · « **Reply #55 on:** August 23, 2010, 09:44 »

Comment on riff raff not very friendly.
Maybe the increased of loss of sale here this forum is due to riff raff.
If size of XL make you non- riff raff, then I confess I fall in sub category of riff raff.
No, I don't have top of line Canon, but if my picture is taking sales away from professional camera top of line non riff raff, then maybe riff raff not so riff raff.

lagereek · « **Reply #56 on:** August 23, 2010, 10:08 »

Quote from: lefty on August 23, 2010, 09:44

Comment on riff raff not very friendly.
Maybe the increased of loss of sale here this forum is due to riff raff.
If size of XL make you non- riff raff, then I confess I fall in sub category of riff raff.
No, I don't have top of line Canon, but if my picture is taking sales away from professional camera top of line non riff raff, then maybe riff raff not so riff raff.

Oh dear, not so personal, its just a figure of speech you know.

alias · « **Reply #57 on:** August 23, 2010, 10:19 »

6MP is full page. + web users do not need anything even that big not even for the equivalent of HD. + if you discourage your riff-raff you will create riff-raff sized business opportunity for someone else to revolutionise stock again. If you try to shut people out of a business they will build their own. Microstock taught that.

lagereek · « **Reply #58 on:** August 23, 2010, 11:31 »

Quote from: alias on August 23, 2010, 10:19

6MP is full page. + web users do not need anything even that big not even for the equivalent of HD. + if you discourage your riff-raff you will create riff-raff sized business opportunity for someone else to revolutionise stock again. If you try to shut people out of a business they will build their own. Microstock taught that.

With riff-raff I mean "getting-rich-over-night" merchants who just dump their ports with all kinds of spamming, etc, never to be heard of again but their stuff still remains in our files. There are thousands of these.

made myself clear now or does anyone still wants these guys to screw it up for us?

lefty · « **Reply #59 on:** August 23, 2010, 12:50 »

Quote from: lagereek on August 23, 2010, 11:31

Quote from: alias on August 23, 2010, 10:19
6MP is full page. + web users do not need anything even that big not even for the equivalent of HD. + if you discourage your riff-raff you will create riff-raff sized business opportunity for someone else to revolutionise stock again. If you try to shut people out of a business they will build their own. Microstock taught that.

With riff-raff I mean "getting-rich-over-night" merchants who just dump their ports with all kinds of spamming, etc, never to be heard of again but their stuff still remains in our files. There are thousands of these.

made myself clear now or does anyone still wants these guys to screw it up for us?

Thank for the clarification.
I agree too that spamming mercs are the problem and not the undersized 6MP contributors.
Our equipment put us on a disadvantage we know because higher resolution pay more commission. Don't think we ignore that fact. But already so many of your professionals and old timers are complain that equipment outlay
shortfall with microstock earning does not make investment of expenisve top of line intelligent spending.
We do not have the larger size picture to compete with you but we do produce equal quality work
or maybe better. If this result in loss for old timers than it is time for old timers to get smarter
and make better work instead of sitting on large behind with excuse that reviewers are not fair.
We get rejections too.

lagereek · « **Reply #60 on:** August 23, 2010, 14:26 »

Quote from: lefty on August 23, 2010, 12:50

Quote from: lagereek on August 23, 2010, 11:31
Quote from: alias on August 23, 2010, 10:19
6MP is full page. + web users do not need anything even that big not even for the equivalent of HD. + if you discourage your riff-raff you will create riff-raff sized business opportunity for someone else to revolutionise stock again. If you try to shut people out of a business they will build their own. Microstock taught that.

With riff-raff I mean "getting-rich-over-night" merchants who just dump their ports with all kinds of spamming, etc, never to be heard of again but their stuff still remains in our files. There are thousands of these.

made myself clear now or does anyone still wants these guys to screw it up for us?

Thank for the clarification.
I agree too that spamming mercs are the problem and not the undersized 6MP contributors.
Our equipment put us on a disadvantage we know because higher resolution pay more commission. Don't think we ignore that fact. But already so many of your professionals and old timers are complain that equipment outlay
shortfall with microstock earning does not make investment of expenisve top of line intelligent spending.
We do not have the larger size picture to compete with you but we do produce equal quality work
or maybe better. If this result in loss for old timers than it is time for old timers to get smarter
and make better work instead of sitting on large behind with excuse that reviewers are not fair.
We get rejections too.

Sorry lefty! but Ive yet to see this fantastic work youre talking about. From what Ive seen its mostly cats, dogs, flowers and what they call young business people.

lefty · « **Reply #61 on:** August 23, 2010, 14:42 »

Quote from: lagereek on August 23, 2010, 14:26

Quote from: lefty on August 23, 2010, 12:50
Quote from: lagereek on August 23, 2010, 11:31
Quote from: alias on August 23, 2010, 10:19
6MP is full page. + web users do not need anything even that big not even for the equivalent of HD. + if you discourage your riff-raff you will create riff-raff sized business opportunity for someone else to revolutionise stock again. If you try to shut people out of a business they will build their own. Microstock taught that.

With riff-raff I mean "getting-rich-over-night" merchants who just dump their ports with all kinds of spamming, etc, never to be heard of again but their stuff still remains in our files. There are thousands of these.

made myself clear now or does anyone still wants these guys to screw it up for us?

Thank for the clarification.
I agree too that spamming mercs are the problem and not the undersized 6MP contributors.
Our equipment put us on a disadvantage we know because higher resolution pay more commission. Don't think we ignore that fact. But already so many of your professionals and old timers are complain that equipment outlay
shortfall with microstock earning does not make investment of expenisve top of line intelligent spending.
We do not have the larger size picture to compete with you but we do produce equal quality work
or maybe better. If this result in loss for old timers than it is time for old timers to get smarter
and make better work instead of sitting on large behind with excuse that reviewers are not fair.
We get rejections too.

Sorry lefty! but Ive yet to see this fantastic work youre talking about. From what Ive seen its mostly cats, dogs, flowers and what they call young business people.

Of course not lagereek, look harder . Like on pages 100, 1001..

as for mostly cats, dogs, flowers, young bisness people, I agree.
For the new ideas, we have first to go pass the reviewers . A bigger stumbling block than you surely agree
for it takes many years to change an idea microstock built.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Poll

How do you deal with increased levels of rejections?

Author Topic: How do you deal with increased levels of rejections? (Read 18746 times)

vonkara

RacePhoto

rubyroo

lagereek

Xalanx

lagereek

lagereek

Xalanx

lagereek

Xalanx

lagereek

alias

lagereek

alias

lagereek

Xalanx

lagereek

lagereek

lagereek

alias

lagereek

lagereek

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors