MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Panning technique in editorial photography - rejection for "post processing"  (Read 2974 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 10, 2015, 08:42 »
0
I have to vent this morning and see if anyone else has had similar problems...

I've been working on submitting my entire catalog of images to BS after they've been sitting in queue for the past year or so.  I've been getting about 50 accepted per day and have increased my approval rating significantly.  The good part:  the review is very quick at BS right now.

Here's the bad and highly annoying part.  I had 6 photos that I took in NYC where I did panning shots of city taxis.  There were at least one or two shots where I panned and "racked the lens," if you will.  Other than basic exposure corrections and the like (which I was always led to believe as acceptable in editorial), nothing was changed.  I wake up this morning that all six photos were rejected due to post production of editorial images.  ?????????  These are images that I have on SS and several other sites.  They are high quality and I didn't break any rules in the editorial department, IMO.

So, are BS's reviewers full of BS?  Do they have a knowledge of basic photography techniques to know that a shot like that can be obtained by using a special in-camera technique? Are they experienced photographers?  Am I naive to think that - LOL???  I'm not sure if I should reach out to them or not.  It only upset my approval rating slightly, but I'm annoyed none the less.  I feel like I want the photos approved and the original rejections erased, if possible.

You can't make this BS up!

Here is a link to one of the photos in question.  http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-191611349/stock-photo-new-york-april-a-panning-technique-was-used-to-photograph-new-york-city-taxis-and-show-motion.html?src=AzHklddA2hBSVxfb4SCkWw-1-17
« Last Edit: May 10, 2015, 08:48 by ecadphoto »


Semmick Photo

« Reply #1 on: May 10, 2015, 08:47 »
0
Calm down a bit. Maybe the panning effect looks from photoshop. Reviewers are humans and can make mistakes. I find their reviews very fair and they always help you if you mail them. And if you have a point they will overturn the decision. Just email them. They are one of the friendliest around. Together with 123 customer support.

« Reply #2 on: May 10, 2015, 08:59 »
0
I know Semnick, I should calm down, but I was annoyed.  I see so much of the crap that microstock sites accept (overall, not saying BS), and when I get rejected for something that I know is improper, it bites.  Bigstock was probably the first agency I was accepted to back in 2007, so they are close to my heart.  Still, I don't think they would look photoshopped to someone who knows the technique.  I've used the motion blur and radial blur features in PS, but nothing beats the beauty of the look SOTC. 

On a side note, how are your sales there?  I've been inactive there for quite some time, but I'm only seeing a few bucks a month.  Back in the early days, I feel like I made more with less images, although the industry wasn't as saturated...LOL...  :)

« Reply #3 on: May 10, 2015, 09:59 »
0
Some agencies are very limited in what they will accept for editorial and anything that looks artificial will be rejected.  I don't recall BS being particularly restrictive so it might just be a particular reviewer.  What I hate is when they reject one that is perfectly fine for regular RF (and accepted that way everywhere else including SS) but they say it has to be editorial.  At BS sales of individual images are low enough that it isn't worth worrying about or trying to resubmit - I'm not going to take the time to make up an editorial caption only for them.  Just submit, forget and move on.

« Reply #4 on: May 12, 2015, 14:55 »
-1
Your example looks a high quality photograph, but due to this technique it doesn't look like a newsworthy image. Shouldn't editorial images have some newsworthiness? How about removing every sign logo etc and submitting RF to other agencies?

« Reply #5 on: May 12, 2015, 21:12 »
0
I emailed BS yesterday and they responded this morning.  They said that after looking at the photos, they are certain they weren't altered in post production and they put them back in my queue to be resubmitted!

Speaking of editorial, they did however, just reject a batch of editorial photos showing the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy several months after the storm.  That surprised me.  They said they weren't newsworthy, yet they've sold quite a bit through other stock sites, especially around the anniversary of the storm. 

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2015, 04:59 »
0
Speaking of editorial, they did however, just reject a batch of editorial photos showing the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy several months after the storm.  That surprised me.  They said they weren't newsworthy, yet they've sold quite a bit through other stock sites, especially around the anniversary of the storm.

yes because they're sold as "archive" images.

as for what is considered newsworthy it's a gray area as so many of the stuff sold by Reuters or AP would never look newsworthy until your read the caption.

for instance a photo of the earthquake in Nepal could be pretty much about a pile or bricks or about a old lady crying and screaming around, there's no way to judge from the image alone and yes for whatever reason these pics can sell even years later.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
8705 Views
Last post September 07, 2010, 19:24
by RacePhoto
11 Replies
6188 Views
Last post December 13, 2011, 20:14
by stockastic
2 Replies
3822 Views
Last post November 23, 2016, 09:02
by seawhisper
5 Replies
2644 Views
Last post March 26, 2017, 04:06
by newstockist
7 Replies
4394 Views
Last post January 24, 2021, 07:47
by Niakris

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle