MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: What's worse, cutting commissions or (almost) 100% rejections?  (Read 9006 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Slovenian

« on: August 18, 2011, 18:36 »
0
Numerous threads regarding FT cutting commissions on were opened (joined into one by Leaf), just like there were tens of thousands of post about IS who started all this. There are only 2 threads about (almost) 100% rejections at SS that, judging by the lack of new posts, don't really interest ppl much. I think in the long run we'll be even worse off at SS, if they don't stop messing around with reviewing. And who's to say, they are not going to cut the commissions on top of that?

I'm not trying to make SS the bad guys, nor am I (really) blowing off steam. I'm just trying to point out to something that could be not only bad for us, but disastrous (rejections staying at 100% most of the time and cutting commissions)


nruboc

« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2011, 18:51 »
0
Numerous threads regarding FT cutting commissions on were opened (joined into one by Leaf), just like there were tens of thousands of post about IS who started all this. There are only 2 threads about (almost) 100% rejections at SS that, judging by the lack of new posts, don't really interest ppl much. I think in the long run we'll be even worse off at SS, if they don't stop messing around with reviewing. And who's to say, they are not going to cut the commissions on top of that?

I'm not trying to make SS the bad guys, nor am I (really) blowing off steam. I'm just trying to point out to something that could be not only bad for us, but disastrous (rejections staying at 100% most of the time and cutting commissions)

I've never had a problem with rejections at SS, maybe that's why it doesn't interest me, and possibly others.

Slovenian

« Reply #2 on: August 18, 2011, 18:54 »
0
Numerous threads regarding FT cutting commissions on were opened (joined into one by Leaf), just like there were tens of thousands of post about IS who started all this. There are only 2 threads about (almost) 100% rejections at SS that, judging by the lack of new posts, don't really interest ppl much. I think in the long run we'll be even worse off at SS, if they don't stop messing around with reviewing. And who's to say, they are not going to cut the commissions on top of that?

I'm not trying to make SS the bad guys, nor am I (really) blowing off steam. I'm just trying to point out to something that could be not only bad for us, but disastrous (rejections staying at 100% most of the time and cutting commissions)

I've never had a problem with rejections at SS, maybe that's why it doesn't interest me, and possibly others.

It wouldn't hurt to point that out in one of those threads. If you check them, at least when it comes to August posts, you can only find those who're reporting rejections on a big scale, mostly for no apparent reason

« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2011, 19:23 »
0
I've never had a problem with rejections at SS, maybe that's why it doesn't interest me, and possibly others.
+1 Approval rate hasn't changed for me either, so I can't comment.

All I could assume is that SS is raising the bar in terms of selecting specific topics and quality features. Absolutely their prerogative. Sales are good (knock on wood).

red

« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2011, 19:41 »
0
Rejections - do you want the sites to accept everything that is technically sound? If so, they must also delete all old images that are not. Who will determine that? If they do that and delete some of your images will you be mad (not you specifically)?

Today, rejections at any site are a consequence of the "information overload" that is in place at those sites. Millions of images are available. Microstock has fallen prey to the times. More TV channels, more emails, more social networking, more enewsletters, more shopping sites, instant access via smartphones (voice and web) - more "multi-tasking" in general. More, more, more. It's unsustainable.

Designers these days have no time to look at every image, they are switching digital tasks constantly. Microstock provides too much irrelevant information -  too many images, and the same images at every site. Those designers loyal to any particular site are tired of seeing the same images each time they log on. When they try a new site they see the same images. They want new, better, one-of-a-kind images and want the old tired images gone.

Everyone thinks their rejections are unwarranted. Yes, in the old days you would look through 100 images and not find anything but today you look through thousands and are still lucky to find what you are looking for. As a buyer I want simple, fast and new, not more choices of images shot at the same angle by different photogs. I can usually find what I need in the first 50 images if they are curated well. And, yes, newer images may not be better but who can ultimately decide what will sell and what will not?

Until an agency can come up with some way to weed out the drek (and there is a lot at all the sites) and only accept really great, technically correct, simple, well-lit images (again, who will decide - I know I couldn't?) nothing will change. The sites have to start being more selective just to slow down the flow of images and find some way to stand out.

I think getting rid of non-sellers after a certain time period and not accepting images from new contributors just to reel them in and never have to pay them for the few saleable images they might provide would be a good way to go. I'm not saying not to accept all new people, but take time to assess their potential. You can usually tell if they will be successful by looking at a dozen of their images before letting them join. I don't want to sound elitist but the days of accepting anyone should be over. When the level of artistry and technical expertise goes up perhaps prices will follow (yeah, I doubt it).

OK, done ranting. I've got to go check my stats on the image sites, read the latest camera reviews, shop for a new cellphone (I always buy unlocked), check out foxnews.com for the latest (yes, I'm one of those), deduce the pros and cons of a possible new ebook reader, do some online research for a bigger monitor, stream my Netflix movie and send an email to my 83-year old mother. I'd better start the coffeepot, I'll be up late

Batman

« Reply #5 on: August 18, 2011, 20:43 »
0
Numerous threads regarding FT cutting commissions on were opened (joined into one by Leaf), just like there were tens of thousands of post about IS who started all this. There are only 2 threads about (almost) 100% rejections at SS that, judging by the lack of new posts, don't really interest ppl much. I think in the long run we'll be even worse off at SS, if they don't stop messing around with reviewing. And who's to say, they are not going to cut the commissions on top of that?

I'm not trying to make SS the bad guys, nor am I (really) blowing off steam. I'm just trying to point out to something that could be not only bad for us, but disastrous (rejections staying at 100% most of the time and cutting commissions)

I've never had a problem with rejections at SS, maybe that's why it doesn't interest me, and possibly others.

It wouldn't hurt to point that out in one of those threads. If you check them, at least when it comes to August posts, you can only find those who're reporting rejections on a big scale, mostly for no apparent reason

If they delete your old photo to make room for my new upload I'd be happy. Is that what you want.

helix7

« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2011, 22:09 »
0

Most folks are not having these large-scale rejection problems at SS.

« Reply #7 on: August 18, 2011, 22:37 »
0
I'm rarely uploading anything this year mainly due to many of the problems complained about lately. Plus being basically lazy. But I must point out that my last six uploads were rejected by SS for reasons that left me scratching my head in disbelief. I've been accepted at SS at a 90+ rate and had usually agreed with the rejections even though most were accepted at IS and elsewhere.
One was a very good shot of a new Firestone Dealership under editorial that was rejected for being not newsworthy. I thought that odd because none of the other images on SS with the "Firestone" keyword were newsworthy by any stretch. My believe was that editorial images were used to illustrate stories that might relate to the companies involved such as showing one of their storefronts and signs. I didn't think it had to be THAT specific store, but that company in general.

???

nruboc

« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2011, 01:12 »
0
I gotta remember to stop responding to these threads by "Anonymous" posters. For all I know the Original Poster is uploading all frickin Flower shots. Why don't you show us who you are so we can formulate an opinion on why you are getting so many rejects? Otherwise this thread is completely pointless.

lagereek

« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2011, 01:57 »
0
Brillant!!  I would say. Why should they accept any old rubbish only because its technically sound? if a pic, is of no commercial value, its got no business clogging up files inside an agency.
An agency which is tough in editing, gives credibillity and in the long run it will favour the buyers and contributors for that matter.

Slovenian

« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2011, 02:57 »
0
Brillant!!  I would say. Why should they accept any old rubbish only because its technically sound? if a pic, is of no commercial value, its got no business clogging up files inside an agency.
An agency which is tough in editing, gives credibillity and in the long run it will favour the buyers and contributors for that matter.

Indeed, I totally agree. And with many others sharing this opinion. But rejecting whole batches for "Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.", which reason by itself is not specific enough, it could be one of 3 things. How is it possible not only, I'm getting 100% acceptance from my last 2 batches at all other sites (Big 4&123RF, no BS agencies) and how's it possible I had a roughly 90% acceptance rate for at least 6 months prior to that, I didn't hit my head really hard and all over sudden forget what it takes for a photo to be accepted and be able to assess with 90% certainty that the photo is suitable (It really was 99%, but I always sent borderline images as well or even those I though were technically not good enough, but the concept, composition etc was, so the percentage dropped to 90% because of that). As far as anonymity goes, I guess some of you will just have to get my word on this, although 90% acceptance rate should be reason enough to believe me. Or not, it's your decision ;) .

What's more important most of you're more focused on the rejections and reasons behind it, but I was asking something completely different in the OP. So what's worse, cuts or not being able to get sheat online anymore (imagine you can't, if you still can;)

lagereek

« Reply #11 on: August 19, 2011, 03:31 »
0
Brillant!!  I would say. Why should they accept any old rubbish only because its technically sound? if a pic, is of no commercial value, its got no business clogging up files inside an agency.
An agency which is tough in editing, gives credibillity and in the long run it will favour the buyers and contributors for that matter.

Indeed, I totally agree. And with many others sharing this opinion. But rejecting whole batches for "Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.", which reason by itself is not specific enough, it could be one of 3 things. How is it possible not only, I'm getting 100% acceptance from my last 2 batches at all other sites (Big 4&123RF, no BS agencies) and how's it possible I had a roughly 90% acceptance rate for at least 6 months prior to that, I didn't hit my head really hard and all over sudden forget what it takes for a photo to be accepted and be able to assess with 90% certainty that the photo is suitable (It really was 99%, but I always sent borderline images as well or even those I though were technically not good enough, but the concept, composition etc was, so the percentage dropped to 90% because of that). As far as anonymity goes, I guess some of you will just have to get my word on this, although 90% acceptance rate should be reason enough to believe me. Or not, it's your decision ;) .

What's more important most of you're more focused on the rejections and reasons behind it, but I was asking something completely different in the OP. So what's worse, cuts or not being able to get sheat online anymore (imagine you can't, if you still can;)


Hi!

Well I know this much. SS dont like poor commercial value, thats for sure, now if you have 99% acceptance at the others, why not try SS again but with a differant approach, differant subject-matter perhaps?

What do you photograph?  subject matters, I mean?

best.

« Reply #12 on: August 19, 2011, 03:45 »
0
I rarely get anything rejected from SS either so it doesn't really matter to me.

Slovenian

« Reply #13 on: August 19, 2011, 03:46 »
0
Brillant!!  I would say. Why should they accept any old rubbish only because its technically sound? if a pic, is of no commercial value, its got no business clogging up files inside an agency.
An agency which is tough in editing, gives credibillity and in the long run it will favour the buyers and contributors for that matter.

Indeed, I totally agree. And with many others sharing this opinion. But rejecting whole batches for "Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.", which reason by itself is not specific enough, it could be one of 3 things. How is it possible not only, I'm getting 100% acceptance from my last 2 batches at all other sites (Big 4&123RF, no BS agencies) and how's it possible I had a roughly 90% acceptance rate for at least 6 months prior to that, I didn't hit my head really hard and all over sudden forget what it takes for a photo to be accepted and be able to assess with 90% certainty that the photo is suitable (It really was 99%, but I always sent borderline images as well or even those I though were technically not good enough, but the concept, composition etc was, so the percentage dropped to 90% because of that). As far as anonymity goes, I guess some of you will just have to get my word on this, although 90% acceptance rate should be reason enough to believe me. Or not, it's your decision ;) .

What's more important most of you're more focused on the rejections and reasons behind it, but I was asking something completely different in the OP. So what's worse, cuts or not being able to get sheat online anymore (imagine you can't, if you still can;)


Hi!

Well I know this much. SS dont like poor commercial value, thats for sure, now if you have 99% acceptance at the others, why not try SS again but with a differant approach, differant subject-matter perhaps?

What do you photograph?  subject matters, I mean?

best.
I had 90% (not 99%) at SS up to a month ago. I got a warning not to resubmit photos and that my account could get suspended. Sent a batch of 5 fresh photos, 4 were rejected (got 9/9 accepted yesterday at 123RF, still pending at other agencies). So I'll wait for a while in hope for things to change.

I shoot ppl exclusively, lately I've done a couple of healthy lifestyle shoots and a stress&recession related business shoot. Things that could sell well, I don't do boring isolations on white, neither I send dozens of images that are almost identical, just with a slightly different angle. I work on quality, not quantity. I'm not saying I stand out, because I don't, but I'm pretty sure my photos are above average. I mean the sales are not so bad, I'm getting over a dollar per photo per month. It's not top notch, but I'm pretty sure top stock photographers don't get 10x more (for instance 100k with a port of 10k)
« Last Edit: August 19, 2011, 03:48 by Slovenian »

lagereek

« Reply #14 on: August 19, 2011, 05:15 »
0
Well people and lifestyles, health, etc, are highly commercial value!  trouble is, 8 out of 10, guys seem to do this, so the competiotion is fierce. Try new angles, a differant geometry of people shots, you know what I mean. differant toning or duplex modes, anything.

Microbius

« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2011, 06:35 »
0
Not everyone is getting the increased rejections while we all suffer from the cuts. For me, cuts are far worse, as I am till getting my work passed.

fujiko

« Reply #16 on: August 19, 2011, 06:42 »
0
Cuts affect everyone. Agency gets more, submitter gets less.
Rejections affect only few. Agency gets nothing, submitter gets nothing.

Cuts are much worse.


Slovenian

« Reply #17 on: August 19, 2011, 07:45 »
0
Well people and lifestyles, health, etc, are highly commercial value!  trouble is, 8 out of 10, guys seem to do this, so the competiotion is fierce. Try new angles, a differant geometry of people shots, you know what I mean. differant toning or duplex modes, anything.

Tnx I'll try to do that. My PS skills are pathetic, I was just discussing that with a friend of mine half an hour ago. I really have to work on that. Besides I have a ton of models at my disposal, perfect weather, but don't have any good ideas on what and even more, how to shoot, even though I know there's thousands of concepts you can shoot outside in the summer. I really have to get inspired and fast, summer will be over in 10 days :(

lagereek

« Reply #18 on: August 19, 2011, 08:10 »
0
Well people and lifestyles, health, etc, are highly commercial value!  trouble is, 8 out of 10, guys seem to do this, so the competiotion is fierce. Try new angles, a differant geometry of people shots, you know what I mean. differant toning or duplex modes, anything.

Tnx I'll try to do that. My PS skills are pathetic, I was just discussing that with a friend of mine half an hour ago. I really have to work on that. Besides I have a ton of models at my disposal, perfect weather, but don't have any good ideas on what and even more, how to shoot, even though I know there's thousands of concepts you can shoot outside in the summer. I really have to get inspired and fast, summer will be over in 10 days :(

Yep!  thats the whole thing,  inspiration! and with plenty of models,  shouldnt be a problem, put them in all sorts of situations and avoid the stereo-type cliche type of shots, boats, cars, supermarkets, behind counters, you know, commercial everyday life.

Slovenian

« Reply #19 on: August 19, 2011, 09:14 »
0
Well people and lifestyles, health, etc, are highly commercial value!  trouble is, 8 out of 10, guys seem to do this, so the competiotion is fierce. Try new angles, a differant geometry of people shots, you know what I mean. differant toning or duplex modes, anything.

Tnx I'll try to do that. My PS skills are pathetic, I was just discussing that with a friend of mine half an hour ago. I really have to work on that. Besides I have a ton of models at my disposal, perfect weather, but don't have any good ideas on what and even more, how to shoot, even though I know there's thousands of concepts you can shoot outside in the summer. I really have to get inspired and fast, summer will be over in 10 days :(

Yep!  thats the whole thing,  inspiration! and with plenty of models,  shouldnt be a problem, put them in all sorts of situations and avoid the stereo-type cliche type of shots, boats, cars, supermarkets, behind counters, you know, commercial everyday life.

Tnx, will do that ;)

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #20 on: August 19, 2011, 09:39 »
0


... avoid the stereo-type cliche type of shots, boats, cars, supermarkets, behind counters, you know, commercial everyday life.



You mean the stuff that sells? : )

lagereek

« Reply #21 on: August 19, 2011, 09:48 »
0


... avoid the stereo-type cliche type of shots, boats, cars, supermarkets, behind counters, you know, commercial everyday life.



You mean the stuff that sells? : )

Yeah right,  only in that bracket he will be compeeting against a gazillion of wanna bees thinking theyre all little Newtons, so whats the point.
Besides, Im not too sure all the stereo boobs, tits and asses, sell all that much today, what sell is probably harder stuff, mind you, you might know a lot more about that then me?
« Last Edit: August 19, 2011, 09:51 by lagereek »

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #22 on: August 19, 2011, 18:53 »
0

Yeah right,  only in that bracket he will be compeeting against a gazillion of wanna bees thinking theyre all little Newtons, so whats the point....


Well thats the paradox of microstock, isnt it? Thinly covered niches are such niches because they hardly sell. It's the same misunderstanding as is with model beauty: ppl think they find extreme features attractive, it sounds logical that you need those to stand out, but in reality mass appeal beauty means being super-average in every feature: a nose thats not too short or not too long, a forehead thats not too high or not too low... just right, right in the middle of the spread of possible proportions.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2011, 19:24 by lthn »

« Reply #23 on: August 20, 2011, 03:11 »
0
My rejection rate has shot up with SS.  They used to sell almost everything I uploaded.  It's very inconsistent, sometimes 100% acceptance, sometimes 100% rejections.  It's their right to change things but with commission cuts and tightening of standards on the other sites, I find it hard to produce images for microstock now.

I can raise my standards but do I really want to put in more work with microstock when the future looks uncertain?  I need to know that commission cuts aren't going to continue until I'm doing this for almost nothing.

If SS want higher standard images, I want to be sure that it's worth it for me.  They need to do something like opening an exclusive images premium priced collection to get me interested again.  At the moment, I'm concentrating on alamy RM and other ways to sell my photos outside of microstock.

« Reply #24 on: August 20, 2011, 03:43 »
0
The fact is that we will work harder for less money...
Difference between growth of our effort and lesser earnings is going directly in pockets of agency owners every day...
So we have to change something or we will eat ourself veeery soon...

P.S.
They doing this because they can, historic deja vu...

« Reply #25 on: August 20, 2011, 04:50 »
0
Numerous threads regarding FT cutting commissions on were opened (joined into one by Leaf), just like there were tens of thousands of post about IS who started all this. There are only 2 threads about (almost) 100% rejections at SS that, judging by the lack of new posts, don't really interest ppl much. I think in the long run we'll be even worse off at SS, if they don't stop messing around with reviewing. And who's to say, they are not going to cut the commissions on top of that?

I'm not trying to make SS the bad guys, nor am I (really) blowing off steam. I'm just trying to point out to something that could be not only bad for us, but disastrous (rejections staying at 100% most of the time and cutting commissions)

So you would rather have your commissions cut and get your crappy photos accepted...

I like SS, if they reject it, it is for a good reason.. Work harder, instead of complaining..

« Reply #26 on: August 20, 2011, 05:05 »
0
Cidepix, have to agree with you. When I get an image rejected by SS I usually agree with their reasons after having another look at it and I think this helps me improve the quality of my images.
I would much prefer to get paid more for the images that are accepted.

Druid


lisafx

« Reply #27 on: August 20, 2011, 18:07 »
0

Tnx I'll try to do that. My PS skills are pathetic, I was just discussing that with a friend of mine half an hour ago. I really have to work on that. Besides I have a ton of models at my disposal, perfect weather, but don't have any good ideas on what and even more, how to shoot, even though I know there's thousands of concepts you can shoot outside in the summer. I really have to get inspired and fast, summer will be over in 10 days :(


You may have hit on the two problems right here.  Sounds like your concepts are good, and you have access to models.  But SS (and the others too to a degree) are increasingly picky about lighting, and appearance of the photo (accomplished in post).  

Sounds like you are shooting outdoors in sunny conditions.  Living in Florida, I do a lot of that too.  Are you modifying your light?  I find that shooting in the shade and using a reflector or fill light to make the models pop is a way to really brighten the image.  I have not been very happy with the look of images shot in direct sunlight with no modification.  If you are already doing that, then the issue must be your post processing, as you suggest.

People will tell you jpeg is as good as RAW.  Maybe in perfectly controlled studio situations it is.  But shooting outdoors using natural light, you really need the extra manipulation you get with a RAW file.  I don't mean fixing mistakes.  Garbage in, garbage out.  But even on a well shot image, proper post processing will make it look a lot better, and RAW allows you to push the contrast and color without adding artifacts, unlike jpeg.  Here's an example:




Oh, and in answer to your original question - lowering commissions is a lot worse.  If you are getting rejections, you can improve your images and technical skills to give them what they want.  With commission cuts there is absolutely nothing you can do about it short of quitting altogether. 
« Last Edit: August 20, 2011, 18:10 by lisafx »

Slovenian

« Reply #28 on: August 20, 2011, 18:29 »
0
Numerous threads regarding FT cutting commissions on were opened (joined into one by Leaf), just like there were tens of thousands of post about IS who started all this. There are only 2 threads about (almost) 100% rejections at SS that, judging by the lack of new posts, don't really interest ppl much. I think in the long run we'll be even worse off at SS, if they don't stop messing around with reviewing. And who's to say, they are not going to cut the commissions on top of that?

I'm not trying to make SS the bad guys, nor am I (really) blowing off steam. I'm just trying to point out to something that could be not only bad for us, but disastrous (rejections staying at 100% most of the time and cutting commissions)

So you would rather have your commissions cut and get your crappy photos accepted...

I like SS, if they reject it, it is for a good reason.. Work harder, instead of complaining..

I love it when inbreds like you decide to comment. I feel so much better about myself because of that.

Slovenian

« Reply #29 on: August 20, 2011, 18:36 »
0

Tnx I'll try to do that. My PS skills are pathetic, I was just discussing that with a friend of mine half an hour ago. I really have to work on that. Besides I have a ton of models at my disposal, perfect weather, but don't have any good ideas on what and even more, how to shoot, even though I know there's thousands of concepts you can shoot outside in the summer. I really have to get inspired and fast, summer will be over in 10 days :(


You may have hit on the two problems right here.  Sounds like your concepts are good, and you have access to models.  But SS (and the others too to a degree) are increasingly picky about lighting, and appearance of the photo (accomplished in post).  

Sounds like you are shooting outdoors in sunny conditions.  Living in Florida, I do a lot of that too.  Are you modifying your light?  I find that shooting in the shade and using a reflector or fill light to make the models pop is a way to really brighten the image.  I have not been very happy with the look of images shot in direct sunlight with no modification.  If you are already doing that, then the issue must be your post processing, as you suggest.

People will tell you jpeg is as good as RAW.  Maybe in perfectly controlled studio situations it is.  But shooting outdoors using natural light, you really need the extra manipulation you get with a RAW file.  I don't mean fixing mistakes.  Garbage in, garbage out.  But even on a well shot image, proper post processing will make it look a lot better, and RAW allows you to push the contrast and color without adding artifacts, unlike jpeg.  Here's an example:




Oh, and in answer to your original question - lowering commissions is a lot worse.  If you are getting rejections, you can improve your images and technical skills to give them what they want.  With commission cuts there is absolutely nothing you can do about it short of quitting altogether. 


Tnx for the tips Lisa, but I'm not that bad to not know the basics :D . I'll PM you a link to my port, it'll be a lot easier than describing what and how I do it and I'll actually save your time too, it'll take 15 seconds for you to see exactly what I do ;)

lisafx

« Reply #30 on: August 20, 2011, 18:45 »
0

Tnx for the tips Lisa, but I'm not that bad to not know the basics :D . I'll PM you a link to my port, it'll be a lot easier than describing what and how I do it and I'll actually save your time too, it'll take 15 seconds for you to see exactly what I do ;)

Wasn't trying to insult your intelligence or anything.  Could not tell from your posts what you skill level was.   The amount of rejections you are getting at SS don't make sense to me if your skill level is high.  

Looking forward to seeing what you can do :)

ETA:  Wow.  After seeing your portfolio I am completely mystified you are getting rejections.  Great concepts, lighting, and post too IMO.  Looks to be on a level with the top stuff in micro. 
« Last Edit: August 20, 2011, 18:51 by lisafx »

Slovenian

« Reply #31 on: August 20, 2011, 19:01 »
0

Tnx for the tips Lisa, but I'm not that bad to not know the basics :D . I'll PM you a link to my port, it'll be a lot easier than describing what and how I do it and I'll actually save your time too, it'll take 15 seconds for you to see exactly what I do ;)

Wasn't trying to insult your intelligence or anything.  Could not tell from your posts what you skill level was.   The amount of rejections you are getting at SS don't make sense to me if your skill level is high.  

Looking forward to seeing what you can do :)

ETA:  Wow.  After seeing your portfolio I am completely mystified you are getting rejections.  Great concepts, lighting, and post too IMO.  Looks to be on a level with the top stuff in micro. 

It wasn't taken in such a way ;)

Tnx Lisa. Not top level, I'm not satisfied with the lighting when I'm using studio lights, but then again I can make excuses, such as lacking the knowledge and not being easy to do everything with a single 60x60 softbox and an umbrella. And currently I'm frustrated with the lack of my imagination :s

« Reply #32 on: August 20, 2011, 19:27 »
0


... avoid the stereo-type cliche type of shots, boats, cars, supermarkets, behind counters, you know, commercial everyday life.



You mean the stuff that sells? : )

You seem to "think" you know all God regarding micro...and rarely can you debate nothing more than your own weakness.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2011, 19:35 by Mantis »

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #33 on: August 21, 2011, 00:42 »
0
Numerous threads regarding FT cutting commissions on were opened (joined into one by Leaf), just like there were tens of thousands of post about IS who started all this. There are only 2 threads about (almost) 100% rejections at SS that, judging by the lack of new posts, don't really interest ppl much. I think in the long run we'll be even worse off at SS, if they don't stop messing around with reviewing. And who's to say, they are not going to cut the commissions on top of that?

I'm not trying to make SS the bad guys, nor am I (really) blowing off steam. I'm just trying to point out to something that could be not only bad for us, but disastrous (rejections staying at 100% most of the time and cutting commissions)

So you would rather have your commissions cut and get your crappy photos accepted...

I like SS, if they reject it, it is for a good reason.. Work harder, instead of complaining..

How can you call his work crappy if you haven't seen it?  I don't blame him for being anonymous.  He's probably too embarrassed being associated with the likes of people like you.  I don't know who's worse, the greedy agents that cut commissions, or the smartarses in here that don't allow anyone to discuss issues and try to come up with solutions.  This forum has become a joke and is full of snotty middle aged kids.  Seriously... grow up!  

This is why I'm now not sure about continuing with my direct selling project... because along with decent contributors that it'd help out, it'd also be helping A-holes like you and VB that do nothing but go around insulting people's work.  I may still go ahead with it, but if I do, it'll be by invitation only... just so I can live with myself.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2011, 00:44 by hasleftthebuilding »

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #34 on: August 21, 2011, 03:44 »
0


... avoid the stereo-type cliche type of shots, boats, cars, supermarkets, behind counters, you know, commercial everyday life.



You mean the stuff that sells? : )

You seem to "think" you know all God regarding micro...and rarely can you debate nothing more than your own weakness.

I see you think you are the local yoda : ))

« Reply #35 on: August 21, 2011, 04:43 »
0
If you are anonymous on this forum, get ready for any kind of comments.. I used to be anonymous and used to get lots of a-holes(as you describe it) attacking me without seeing my work.. I don't blame people for doing that.. If you want any sort of credibility you have to show your work..

His work may be awesome but I have no chance of seeing that.. If he complains about rejections, then he should show us examples to prove shutterstock is wrong.. if not than he sounds like one of the newbies who complains on shutterstock forums all the time when they don't get the initial 10 approved.. yes, I am talking about those kids who knows photography better than anybody who runs one of the biggest stockphoto websites that is shutterstock..

Numerous threads regarding FT cutting commissions on were opened (joined into one by Leaf), just like there were tens of thousands of post about IS who started all this. There are only 2 threads about (almost) 100% rejections at SS that, judging by the lack of new posts, don't really interest ppl much. I think in the long run we'll be even worse off at SS, if they don't stop messing around with reviewing. And who's to say, they are not going to cut the commissions on top of that?

I'm not trying to make SS the bad guys, nor am I (really) blowing off steam. I'm just trying to point out to something that could be not only bad for us, but disastrous (rejections staying at 100% most of the time and cutting commissions)

So you would rather have your commissions cut and get your crappy photos accepted...

I like SS, if they reject it, it is for a good reason.. Work harder, instead of complaining..

How can you call his work crappy if you haven't seen it?  I don't blame him for being anonymous.  He's probably too embarrassed being associated with the likes of people like you.  I don't know who's worse, the greedy agents that cut commissions, or the smartarses in here that don't allow anyone to discuss issues and try to come up with solutions.  This forum has become a joke and is full of snotty middle aged kids.  Seriously... grow up!  

This is why I'm now not sure about continuing with my direct selling project... because along with decent contributors that it'd help out, it'd also be helping A-holes like you and VB that do nothing but go around insulting people's work.  I may still go ahead with it, but if I do, it'll be by invitation only... just so I can live with myself.

Microbius

« Reply #36 on: August 21, 2011, 05:43 »
0
hasleftthebuilding are you pseudonymous/ sunnymars? I'm finding it hard to keep track with people constantly changing their names on this forum!
How about even anonymous people try to stick to one name for a while, so we can keep track of personalities here?!


TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #37 on: August 21, 2011, 05:53 »
0
But why do you have to take it there?  Why assume that his images are 'crappy'.  The guy (or girl) has already said they were sitting on 90% AR for the last six months and then it switched to almost 100% rejection.  If you're going to assume anything using the little information you have, shouldn't you assume that his images are not crappy and that there's obviously something off going on with the reviewers there.  What if it suddenly turns around for you and you then get 100% rejections, should we all call your images "crappy" because shutterstock suddenly starting rejecting them?

Some of the people here are just rude and it's constant comments like yours that pop up out of nowhere making people get their backs up and turning every thread into a mess.  What is the point of this forum if grown up contributors can't discuss their experiences without someone snapping at them for no reason.  I'm finding I'm always getting IS exclusives talking rubbish to me for no reason at all other than to get me fired up and then I lose focus on point of the thread.  I'll get fired up then more people jump in and the thread becomes another waste of time.  Likewise you have anonymous posters copping endless crap from others here for no reason other than because they're anonymous.  They have their reasons for being anonymous so why can't people respect that?

If you are anonymous on this forum, get ready for any kind of comments.. I used to be anonymous and used to get lots of a-holes(as you describe it) attacking me without seeing my work.. I don't blame people for doing that.. If you want any sort of credibility you have to show your work..

His work may be awesome but I have no chance of seeing that.. If he complains about rejections, then he should show us examples to prove shutterstock is wrong.. if not than he sounds like one of the newbies who complains on shutterstock forums all the time when they don't get the initial 10 approved.. yes, I am talking about those kids who knows photography better than anybody who runs one of the biggest stockphoto websites that is shutterstock..

Numerous threads regarding FT cutting commissions on were opened (joined into one by Leaf), just like there were tens of thousands of post about IS who started all this. There are only 2 threads about (almost) 100% rejections at SS that, judging by the lack of new posts, don't really interest ppl much. I think in the long run we'll be even worse off at SS, if they don't stop messing around with reviewing. And who's to say, they are not going to cut the commissions on top of that?

I'm not trying to make SS the bad guys, nor am I (really) blowing off steam. I'm just trying to point out to something that could be not only bad for us, but disastrous (rejections staying at 100% most of the time and cutting commissions)

So you would rather have your commissions cut and get your crappy photos accepted...

I like SS, if they reject it, it is for a good reason.. Work harder, instead of complaining..

How can you call his work crappy if you haven't seen it?  I don't blame him for being anonymous.  He's probably too embarrassed being associated with the likes of people like you.  I don't know who's worse, the greedy agents that cut commissions, or the smartarses in here that don't allow anyone to discuss issues and try to come up with solutions.  This forum has become a joke and is full of snotty middle aged kids.  Seriously... grow up!  

This is why I'm now not sure about continuing with my direct selling project... because along with decent contributors that it'd help out, it'd also be helping A-holes like you and VB that do nothing but go around insulting people's work.  I may still go ahead with it, but if I do, it'll be by invitation only... just so I can live with myself.

Microbius, you're right, but I changed it because for the last few weeks I've been mostly discussing the selling direct project which I'm probably going to scrap... I didn't want people to expect it and I didn't want people to continue contacting me about it both here and on my sites.  Also I probably won't be posting as much in here now that I don't intend to go ahead with it... at least for a while anyway.  I really wanted to discuss the Fotolia (and microstock problem in general) but it just seems impossible to discuss anything here most times.  I'm still interested in reading about issues though but even that is a bit of a waste of time because every thread turns out like this one.  It's ruining the forum.

Microbius

« Reply #38 on: August 21, 2011, 06:16 »
0
Okay got ya. I only just read the FL thread too, so I get it now. Not about being deceptive but a fresh start sort of thing.

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #39 on: August 21, 2011, 06:50 »
0
Microbius, no, it's not even about making a fresh start.  It's more about being left alone over the selling direct project because people were reading a lot of my older posts in various threads about the idea and contacting me.  I don't know what to tell people now if they ask me.  Right now I'm turned off over it and want to put it on the backburner while I focus on a few other things but who knows, maybe in a few months, if there's more interest in selling direct, I may resurrect it.  People were also curious and contacting me over another idea I brought up and I don't want them contacting me over that either... I may need to patent it first.

But back on topic.  I hope people lighten up a bit in here.  No one should be surprised over the increase in rejections, but Slovenian is right, what does a person do in the situation where they suddenly get almost 100% rejections.  Do they quit?  What if it starts happening to you or I in the near future? 

Everyone's getting pissed over lowered commissions and higher rejections and taking it out on each other here.  Instead of supporting each other, we've become each others' punching bags.  No issue can ever be resolved if every comment is purely driven by emotion.   We may all be competitors but we're also the only people that can relate and understand each other and what we do.  Instead of bashing each other, why can't we all put our collective minds together and come up with better ways.  Even if we don't come up with it ourselves, chances are that some entrepreneur will be reading what we're all saying and may come up with something where we all benefit.  But if every thread turns into just bitching, it will never happen.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #40 on: August 21, 2011, 09:49 »
0

Tnx I'll try to do that. My PS skills are pathetic, I was just discussing that with a friend of mine half an hour ago. I really have to work on that. Besides I have a ton of models at my disposal, perfect weather, but don't have any good ideas on what and even more, how to shoot, even though I know there's thousands of concepts you can shoot outside in the summer. I really have to get inspired and fast, summer will be over in 10 days :(


You may have hit on the two problems right here.  Sounds like your concepts are good, and you have access to models.  But SS (and the others too to a degree) are increasingly picky about lighting, and appearance of the photo (accomplished in post).  

Sounds like you are shooting outdoors in sunny conditions.  Living in Florida, I do a lot of that too.  Are you modifying your light?  I find that shooting in the shade and using a reflector or fill light to make the models pop is a way to really brighten the image.  I have not been very happy with the look of images shot in direct sunlight with no modification.  If you are already doing that, then the issue must be your post processing, as you suggest.

People will tell you jpeg is as good as RAW.  Maybe in perfectly controlled studio situations it is.  But shooting outdoors using natural light, you really need the extra manipulation you get with a RAW file.  I don't mean fixing mistakes.  Garbage in, garbage out.  But even on a well shot image, proper post processing will make it look a lot better, and RAW allows you to push the contrast and color without adding artifacts, unlike jpeg.  Here's an example:




Oh, and in answer to your original question - lowering commissions is a lot worse.  If you are getting rejections, you can improve your images and technical skills to give them what they want.  With commission cuts there is absolutely nothing you can do about it short of quitting altogether. 


I like the first one lot more to be honest, it only needs the shiny leaf(?) to be removed... and maybe a very slight brightness increase on the faces, but strictly only the faces.

lagereek

« Reply #41 on: August 21, 2011, 09:51 »
0
Mantis!  have hit it on the nail!  involving God in micro. Well?  thats certainly an angle I havent considered. Sure would like to give it a try though :D

« Reply #42 on: August 21, 2011, 18:35 »
0


... avoid the stereo-type cliche type of shots, boats, cars, supermarkets, behind counters, you know, commercial everyday life.



You mean the stuff that sells? : )

You seem to "think" you know all God regarding micro...and rarely can you debate nothing more than your own weakness.

I see you think you are the local yoda : ))

Well at least I am fair and open to opinions. 

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #43 on: August 22, 2011, 02:22 »
0


... avoid the stereo-type cliche type of shots, boats, cars, supermarkets, behind counters, you know, commercial everyday life.



You mean the stuff that sells? : )

You seem to "think" you know all God regarding micro...and rarely can you debate nothing more than your own weakness.

I see you think you are the local yoda : ))

Well at least I am fair and open to opinions. 

you just denied a handful of mine... : D

« Reply #44 on: August 22, 2011, 04:07 »
0
Cutting commissions

Slovenian

« Reply #45 on: August 22, 2011, 06:27 »
0
Wow, I can't believe, I finally got a batch through with 100% approval (5/5). If it would get the usual (for the last month or so) 80%-100% rejection I'd just hold of from uploading for a few weeks.

lisafx

« Reply #46 on: August 22, 2011, 16:10 »
0
Congrats Slovenian.  Sounds like you got a bad reviewer before.  I have noticed that rejections go up and seem more random when they are training new reviewers.  Maybe that's what happened to you.

For anyone who is wondering if his work is crappy, it isn't.  It is quite good from what I saw.  As good as most of the top sellers IMO. 


« Reply #47 on: August 22, 2011, 17:56 »
0
I have not uploaded anything in over two years (except at new sites Warmpicture and Stockfresh, but that's old material anyway), so commission cuts hurt me immensely.

Slovenian

« Reply #48 on: August 22, 2011, 18:38 »
0
Congrats Slovenian.  Sounds like you got a bad reviewer before.  I have noticed that rejections go up and seem more random when they are training new reviewers.  Maybe that's what happened to you.

For anyone who is wondering if his work is crappy, it isn't.  It is quite good from what I saw.  As good as most of the top sellers IMO. 

Tnx Lisa. Yeah, a few times in a row :o . It's just my luck...I just hope they won't have anything to do with my photos in the future.

Planing on lots of shoots, so I really need the real inspectors reviewing my images or else it's all for nothing. If this was happening at DT or FT (not uploading there anymore anyway, but if I still was) I wouldn't even care, but SS is something completely different.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
40 Replies
15161 Views
Last post April 09, 2011, 17:55
by azurelaroux
It gets worse and worse here!

Started by lagereek 123RF

20 Replies
5089 Views
Last post August 31, 2011, 20:59
by alex123rf
138 Replies
28391 Views
Last post December 14, 2012, 17:07
by djpadavona
13 Replies
2592 Views
Last post December 10, 2013, 14:25
by Noedelhap
11 Replies
1732 Views
Last post February 01, 2015, 15:47
by Snow

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results