pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Rejections at SS  (Read 18867 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

aly

« on: January 27, 2014, 19:28 »
0
Back to the  bad old days -only 7 out of 127 accepted today and all out of focus!! Last time it was poor lighting and now its focus. What will it be next time? Please let us have some consistent reviewing-must admit the last 2 weeks were really good. But so  up and down.It is so frustrating not to mention time consuming.


« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2014, 19:31 »
+2
That's a lot of rejections. Either you got Atilla or there was real quality issues.  If you dare to pose some of the rejected images I am sure peeps will chime in.

« Reply #2 on: January 27, 2014, 21:31 »
0
Back to the  bad old days -only 7 out of 127 accepted today and all out of focus!! 

The reason why I'll never submit more than three with the SS. Too much time wasted. I've had better luck the past few submissions and was hoping that the SS was off its high horse but you're proof the SS is still out of focus.

Goofy

« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2014, 22:52 »
+2
Let's see some of the rejected images for us to help you.

 I am over 90% accepted images this month thus don't feel that SS is being too harsh.

« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2014, 03:15 »
+9
I can't help wondering if someone uploading 127 images at once is paying much attention to them. I know I spend an average 15 minutes per image in processing - even though the final result doesn't look much different from what I start with.

« Reply #5 on: January 28, 2014, 03:38 »
+1
Let's see some of the rejected images for us to help you.

 I am over 90% accepted images this month thus don't feel that SS is being too harsh.

+1

aly

« Reply #6 on: January 28, 2014, 06:15 »
0
I have spent 3 days  uploading 127 images after RAW processing, PS CS6  and cropping etc.I assure you it was a slow task as I am meticulous in what I am doing.

« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2014, 07:57 »
+2
I have spent 3 days  uploading 127 images after RAW processing, PS CS6  and cropping etc.I assure you it was a slow task as I am meticulous in what I am doing.

I used to do the same thing and submit 80+ pictures at a time per week and get random rejections. Now I submit batches of 20+ every few days. This way, if something get rejected for weird reason I can find the image much easier and fix the issue. Most whole batch rejections are invalid though.

« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2014, 07:59 »
0
I have spent 3 days  uploading 127 images after RAW processing, PS CS6  and cropping etc.I assure you it was a slow task as I am meticulous in what I am doing.

I used to do the same thing and submit 80+ pictures at a time per week and get random rejections. Now I submit batches of 20+ every few days. This way, if something get rejected for weird reason I can find the image much easier and fix the issue. Most whole batch rejections are invalid though.

Same thing here...
+1

« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2014, 10:06 »
0
I cannot imagine uploading 127 images, let alone having so many pictures. Unless they are editorial.

Sometimes I photograph a model, and take maybe 300 images.
All sharp and nice, except for a percentage of awkwards. But I would only upload, maybe 10, to see how they sell, and since they dont, I wont fish in that pond again, untill I get an idea for a composite concept and can use one of them.

How can you guys produce so many pictures?

ACS

« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2014, 11:14 »
0
I never uploaded more than 10 shots in one batch to SS so far. And when I uploaded, that 10 were of combination of 2-3 different subjects. I wonder if those 127 were of the same or similar subjects? What about the commercial values? Nature/landscape shots, model shots, isolated objects etc.? Even though thay said focus as the reason, reviewers might have thought that they were not suitable as stock. If possible provide some examples.

Goofy

« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2014, 11:51 »
0
Yet, you haven't uploaded a single rejected image for us to make good sound suggestions or comments on.  We cannot fight with our hands tied behind our backs on this battle...

« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2014, 12:01 »
+3
It's clear to me there's at least one reviewer with a bug up his butt.  I've been submitting batches of 20 from a studio shoot.  Same model, same lighting, same editing.  And every batch up until yesterday was 100% accepted.  Then I get a review with every single image rejected, all for the same reason: Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues and/or incorrect white balance.  Anyone care to tell me what's wrong with the lighting on one of these that's acceptable on the other?

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2014, 12:28 »
0
It's clear to me there's at least one reviewer with a bug up his butt.  I've been submitting batches of 20 from a studio shoot.  Same model, same lighting, same editing.  And every batch up until yesterday was 100% accepted.  Then I get a review with every single image rejected, all for the same reason: Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues and/or incorrect white balance.  Anyone care to tell me what's wrong with the lighting on one of these that's acceptable on the other?

It is clear to me too a bug or a virus
Or just a lack of RAM

I don't see any problem of lighting or white balance in these images, even if personally I would have preferred the images a little lighter, but this is only a question of personal taste not a question of exposure or WB.
Maybe the inspector likes lighter images too, but does not respect your legitimate point of view/interpretation

This kind of rejection happens continuously (at least to me), at a point that now I upload no more than 5 files at a time.


« Reply #14 on: January 28, 2014, 12:42 »
-3
there is purple fringing.

« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2014, 13:02 »
0
there is purple fringing.

No, there isn't.  Not in the full resolution images.  In any event, that doesn't match the reason for the rejection.  CA doesn't equate to poor lighting.

Ron

« Reply #16 on: January 28, 2014, 13:09 »
0
[.  CA doesn't equate to poor lighting.
It does in the SS rejection reason. Poor lighting, WB and CA are the same rejection.

Not saying there is CA, coz I dont see it.


cuppacoffee

« Reply #17 on: January 28, 2014, 13:12 »
+2
I mean no disrespect to anyone here and I'm only asking from the perspective of someone who doesn't photograph people but with so many photos of pretty women on isolated backgrounds available at all the microsites is there still a market for them? Do they sell often? What helps them sell better than other "beautiful woman" shots. Again, this is not directed to any one photographer, I'm just trying to understand the market and do not intend to start photographing people (too hard if you don't have a studio and the proper lighting set-up).

Rinderart

« Reply #18 on: January 28, 2014, 13:19 »
-1
Back to the  bad old days -only 7 out of 127 accepted today and all out of focus!! Last time it was poor lighting and now its focus. What will it be next time? Please let us have some consistent reviewing-must admit the last 2 weeks were really good. But so  up and down.It is so frustrating not to mention time consuming.

All Ya have to do is Use the critique forum at SS. But, we will tell you the truth and not what you want to hear. We have some pretty qualified folks there that can Help you. But....Pls post Properly with a full Image and a 100% crop. Very few who complain do this because they don't wanna hear the truth. Focus has been and will always be the #1 Problem we see. Give us a try, We won't bite...Promise. Also..As said submitting that many at one time is a disaster waiting to happen. 20/25 at a time unless your a factory shooter. Even if accepted, they will get buried to fast.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2014, 13:25 by Rinderart »

Rinderart

« Reply #19 on: January 28, 2014, 13:21 »
-1
I mean no disrespect to anyone here and I'm only asking from the perspective of someone who doesn't photograph people but with so many photos of pretty women on isolated backgrounds available at all the microsites is there still a market for them? Do they sell often? What helps them sell better than other "beautiful woman" shots. Again, this is not directed to any one photographer, I'm just trying to understand the market and do not intend to start photographing people (too hard if you don't have a studio and the proper lighting set-up).

Depends on the Image. Pretty much Like any other subject.

« Reply #20 on: January 28, 2014, 13:32 »
+1
I mean no disrespect to anyone here and I'm only asking from the perspective of someone who doesn't photograph people but with so many photos of pretty women on isolated backgrounds available at all the microsites is there still a market for them? Do they sell often? What helps them sell better than other "beautiful woman" shots. Again, this is not directed to any one photographer, I'm just trying to understand the market and do not intend to start photographing people (too hard if you don't have a studio and the proper lighting set-up).

beautiful women? how about apples, tomatoes, business men, beaches, etc? what you are doing isn't already in the searches? pretty much all subjects are very well covered, buyers/designers don't really need new work from us but fresh content/new concepts to upgrade their previous campaigns will look much better than the old and very downloaded picture that everybody has

pretty much the last guy standing shooting new content will be the "richest", it is important that the search engines that are constantly changing help him as well ;D

cuppacoffee

« Reply #21 on: January 28, 2014, 13:38 »
+1
Yes, I understand that, it is obvious that certain areas are well covered. I've been doing this for 6 years and have watched the images pile up on all sites. Beautiful woman on white background (and those **blasted** pet cat photos) is an area that many photogs specialize in and they must for a reason. Yes, I know that fashion changes and fresh images should sell.  I also know that each site has different search algorithms that place certain images near the top. I get all that. I guess a better question would be to those who shoot these images, have sales kept up with the supply and are they good earners compared to the other subjects they shoot?
« Last Edit: January 28, 2014, 15:06 by cuppacoffee »

« Reply #22 on: January 28, 2014, 17:06 »
0

It is clear to me too a bug or a virus
Or just a lack of RAM

I don't see any problem of lighting or white balance in these images, even if personally I would have preferred the images a little lighter, but this is only a question of personal taste not a question of exposure or WB.
Maybe the inspector likes lighter images too, but does not respect your legitimate point of view/interpretation

This kind of rejection happens continuously (at least to me), at a point that now I upload no more than 5 files at a time.

They're spoiled for choice and be that picky and probably for that.  Had 2 early last year like that so now I just do them a tad lighter.

aly

« Reply #23 on: January 28, 2014, 17:49 »
0
A few of my images rejected.

Ron

« Reply #24 on: January 28, 2014, 17:51 »
+8
I am sorry but I cant say I disagree with the reviewer.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
6020 Views
Last post April 26, 2020, 10:57
by Uncle Pete
Rejections

Started by PZF Canva

5 Replies
3935 Views
Last post September 16, 2020, 22:55
by PhotoBomb
4 Replies
10189 Views
Last post March 16, 2022, 15:21
by Uncle Pete
5 Replies
5053 Views
Last post August 24, 2022, 05:54
by Mimi the Cat
258 Replies
32607 Views
Last post August 11, 2023, 06:22
by Injustice for all

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors