Author Topic: How do you deal with increased levels of rejections? (Read 18825 times)

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....

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Poll

How do you deal with increased levels of rejections?

Author Topic: How do you deal with increased levels of rejections? (Read 18825 times)

Xalanx

lagereek

FD

fullvalue

louoates

lefty

lagereek

BaldricksTrousers

FD

BaldricksTrousers

Xalanx

BaldricksTrousers

lagereek

Xalanx

BaldricksTrousers

lagereek

alias

lagereek

BaldricksTrousers

FD

alias

BaldricksTrousers

BaldricksTrousers

lagereek

BaldricksTrousers

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors