Author Topic: your most laughable rejection (Read 10337 times)

tan510jomast · « **on:** July 10, 2008, 19:11 »

Ok I am overworked and I want to laugh some.
Here's my new topic and I want you to be funny big time.

I know the most irritating rejections are "this is a snapshot!"
(do better), "too many already!",etc...

BUT what is the funniest one you have received.

RGebbiePhoto · « **Reply #1 on:** July 11, 2008, 12:02 »

We took some pictures of our parrots and the images were crisp and extremely detailed, no artifacting, rich coloring, ...

Alas, they were rejected for "Feathering"

vphoto · « **Reply #2 on:** July 11, 2008, 12:13 »

did they suggest pluck and resubmit ?

mantonino · « **Reply #3 on:** July 11, 2008, 12:59 »

I submitted some silhouettes and attached the MRs for the models. Dreamstime rejected them for:

"Does not need model release"

Joyce · « **Reply #4 on:** July 11, 2008, 19:14 »

I submitted an isolated photo of a peacock feather to BigStock once. Took forever to get a smooth isolation, so I was worried about it getting rejected on some fault with that. Rejection reason?

"Inappropriate keywords: This is not a feather"

I guess peacocks don't exist in that reviewer's country?

epixx · « **Reply #5 on:** July 11, 2008, 20:06 »

Quote from: mantonino on July 11, 2008, 12:59

I submitted some silhouettes and attached the MRs for the models. Dreamstime rejected them for:

"Does not need model release"

Ha ha.... I got the opposite from IS. Submitted silhouettes of people, and the reviewer said "subjects can be recognised if curves are manipulated, release needed"

They were right actually, but by manipulating the photo that much, it was way beyond unusable. Oh well....

rjmiz · « **Reply #6 on:** July 12, 2008, 04:01 »

I don't find any of these rejection reasons funny....NOT ONE.

Sad, very sad. I think that these type of rejections are evidence that mental health issues are more important
than global warming, oil prices, or the trouble in the middle East. This is a sad problem we all need to address.

There should be, could be, ....some sort of third party judicial agency we could use address these issues.
Statistics show that if the increase in the amount of photog's remains at the current pace,...by the year 2020
3/4 of the worlds population will be microstock contributors.

By then there will be laws governing rejections by micro sites, to protect the massive amount of photographers.

Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason

Adeptris · « **Reply #7 on:** July 12, 2008, 04:14 »

I find every rejection funny, because I have already narrowed possible images for submission, about 2% - 5% of any shoot, I have already looked at the quality, zoomed at over 100%, and post processed if required, and I have already looked at the content as I did shoot the image for stock and not for someone's mom or to hang on a wall somewhere, and I subjectivly get to a few images to submit.

And then they have the cheek to reject my images!

I never try to rescue an image unless the rejection is for stray area's on an isolation or keywords, any other rejection I just laugh and move on

The biggest laugh is that editing is subjective and the editors think they know what the buyers want, now that is a laugh!

David

Jimi King · « **Reply #8 on:** July 12, 2008, 04:21 »

Rejection Reason

Please rotate your file to display correct orientation.

rjmiz · « **Reply #9 on:** July 12, 2008, 04:23 »

That's why I propose some sort of judicial process where by we could sue the micro sites for false or irrelevant rejections.

Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason

Bateleur · « **Reply #10 on:** July 12, 2008, 04:27 »

Quote from: epixx on July 11, 2008, 20:06

Quote from: mantonino on July 11, 2008, 12:59
I submitted some silhouettes and attached the MRs for the models. Dreamstime rejected them for:

"Does not need model release"

Ha ha.... I got the opposite from IS. Submitted silhouettes of people, and the reviewer said "subjects can be recognised if curves are manipulated, release needed"

They were right actually, but by manipulating the photo that much, it was way beyond unusable. Oh well....

Wow! They must be dedicated inspectors.

How much do they get per image? 5 cents? 10 cents? And for that, not only do they check for noise, artefacts, dust spots ... the whole shebang. They also open the image in an editing program and manipulate the curves.

Amazing!

UncleGene · « **Reply #11 on:** July 12, 2008, 09:44 »

I like this one:

"- To many images of this subject in our library"

(Note: not typed, copy-pasted)

rjmiz · « **Reply #12 on:** July 12, 2008, 11:04 »

Quote from: UncleGene on July 12, 2008, 09:44

I like this one:
"- To many images of this subject in our library"
(Note: not typed, copy-pasted)

Not funny... you get a 1 out of a possible 10

Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason

sam100 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 12, 2008, 13:03 »

A 3D image, rejected, reason... white balance incorrect...

Patrick H.

tan510jomast · « **Reply #14 on:** July 12, 2008, 23:11 »

Quote from: Jimi King on July 12, 2008, 04:21

Rejection Reason

Please rotate your file to display correct orientation.

wow, cheers everyone , for coming here and lightening up my day.
i get a good laugh so far. everyone of you have something valid to say.

jimi king , i don't think it would be a good idea to rotate that image.
if you did that and re-submit,
the reviewer would reject it again, and giving the reason as:
"sorry, you cannot submit phallic symbols... or worst,
no red condom allowed !"

vividpixels · « **Reply #15 on:** July 13, 2008, 00:19 »

Close-up of a snail on the grass - rejected by FOTOLIA for not having a model release

melastmohican · « **Reply #16 on:** July 13, 2008, 02:36 »

Quote from: vividpixels on July 13, 2008, 00:19

Close-up of a snail on the grass - rejected by FOTOLIA for not having a model release

Wow, this snail must be some sort of celebrity. My bad I cannot recognize who he/she is...

Fran · « **Reply #17 on:** July 13, 2008, 04:47 »

Quote from: patrick1958 on July 12, 2008, 13:03

A 3D image, rejected, reason... white balance incorrect...

Patrick H.

Please show me how you can do that, I'll try it in real-time and we'll both get incredibly rich selling photorealistic 3d engines for videogames

tan510jomast · « **Reply #18 on:** July 13, 2008, 09:39 »

i just realised something.
christmas is coming, and all the sites do mention that
'ALL RECOGNIZABLE FACES MUST HAVE A MODEL RELEASE", or something like that.
i just submitted Santa Claus and Frosty the Snowman!
oops. no model release for these "recognizable faces"!

no, just joking. but seriously, i had a rejection (no names mentioned
to protect the guilty),
the honourable reviewer rejected my frosty the snowman.
reason: "Low interest subject: Probably little demand/selling potential for this image. Try for more marketable shots.".

duh

confused

Pixart · « **Reply #19 on:** July 14, 2008, 11:31 »

I just got "7 out of 10" must be approved. Haven't seen that one in a while.... and there was only 3 in the batch.

tan510jomast · « **Reply #20 on:** July 14, 2008, 12:03 »

Quote from: Pixart on July 14, 2008, 11:31

I just got "7 out of 10" must be approved. Haven't seen that one in a while.... and there was only 3 in the batch.

oh my goodness Pixart,
i hope that does not mean that your next 7 has just been PRE-REJECTED

louoates · « **Reply #21 on:** July 14, 2008, 13:58 »

Pre-rejection. Hmmm. I like the concept. Sort of like reducing your carbon footprint by buying carbon "credits" from someone else. How about this: I'll sell you a bunch of guaranteed-rejected images that you upload to any site. Rejection problem solved.

Pixart · « **Reply #22 on:** July 14, 2008, 15:21 »

Quote from: louoates on July 14, 2008, 13:58

How about this: I'll sell you a bunch of guaranteed-rejected images that you upload to any site. Rejection problem solved.

I hate to brag, but I've got loads of those myself

tan510jomast · « **Reply #23 on:** July 14, 2008, 16:12 »

Quote from: Pixart on July 14, 2008, 15:21

Quote from: louoates on July 14, 2008, 13:58
How about this: I'll sell you a bunch of guaranteed-rejected images that you upload to any site. Rejection problem solved.
I hate to brag, but I've got loads of those myself

that's funny, thanks!
but other than the obvious images with noise or artifacts,
i don't think there is such things as a sure rejection image.

there's been more than once that i was so sure an image was going to be rejected and it wasn't, and then end up being a sale for me.
on the other hand, i do also like you, have loads of rejected images,
many of which i thought were sure approval.

i guess the one thing we like about "sure rejects" is that we are both happy and mystified that they get accepted and bought.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #24 on:** July 14, 2008, 18:07 »

Quote from: melastmohican on July 13, 2008, 02:36

Quote from: vividpixels on July 13, 2008, 00:19
Close-up of a snail on the grass - rejected by FOTOLIA for not having a model release

Wow, this snail must be some sort of celebrity. My bad I cannot recognize who he/she is...

It is a famous snail, I recognize him. Once there was a snail that raced cars. As he got more and more famous, they used the letter "S" on the side of his racer, instead of a number. When he went whizzing past, people were often heard exclaiming, "look at that S car go" ! (rim shot here)

"Frosty the Snowman" is a popular song written by Walter "Jack" Rollins and Steve Nelson, and first recorded by Gene Autry and the Cass County Boys in 1950. So the reason should have been copyright violation in keywords.

Frosty came to life with a magic hat. Mr. Garrison often speaks through a hand puppet named Mr. Hat. I think there might be something suspicious going on here.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: your most laughable rejection (Read 10337 times)

tan510jomast

RGebbiePhoto

vphoto

mantonino

Joyce

epixx

rjmiz

Adeptris

Jimi King

rjmiz

Bateleur

UncleGene

rjmiz

sam100

tan510jomast

vividpixels

melastmohican

Fran

tan510jomast

Pixart

tan510jomast

louoates

Pixart

tan510jomast

RacePhoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors