I am shocked. I got these images rejected at SS by Limited Commercial Value. What?!!!

yep, looks like a mistake to me. Those shots are microstock bread and butter. I would probably just resubmit them.

Quote from: Microbius on January 11, 2010, 10:08
yep, looks like a mistake to me. Those shots are microstock bread and butter. I would probably just resubmit them.

What he said - someone definitely clicked the wrong button

I don't think he did. While my rejection at SS is about 0% he rejected a lot of other images by artifacts (1dsmk3) poor ligting, purple fingering... etc. This is very subjective so I am not showing that images here, but of course I checked all the rejected images again. No artifacts, no purple fingering. He seems to be a moron or maybe just drunk?

Attila is at SS right now, that's whats happening. A friend of mine just had some studio images rejected for focus. He's a long time photographer and is using 1Ds3 and only L glass.
I also have some files under review right now and I can say I'm a little nervous...

Quote from: NitorPhoto on January 11, 2010, 10:16
I don't think he did. While my rejection at SS is about 0% he rejected a lot of other images by artifacts (1dsmk3) poor ligting, purple fingering... etc. This is very subjective so I am not showing that images here, but of course I checked all the rejected images again. No artifacts, no purple fingering. He seems to be a moron or maybe just drunk?

That could be another explanation

I'm the friend and this came as a big surprise to me, probably I will resubmit those.

The rejected shots are made in the studio, at f/8 - f/11, perfectly focused, and the message is "Focus--Your image is not in focus or focus is not located where we feel it works best.". Yeah, sure...

It must be the work of phantom reviewer on SS...

Someone there sometimes reject everything...

Reviews are so quick at the moment, upload them while Attila is sleeping it off and they should go through.  I find most of the SS reviewers are very lenient.  The main problem I have with them is that they don't like shallow focus, even if it works well.  "Purple fingering" made me LOL, never had one rejected for that before

My photos went thru, 100%. Sweet dreams, Attila...

I never believe claims about focus being spot on, without an example posted .

Well that review is completely out of this world... those DO have a high commercial value. That reviewer should be "reviewed" for sure!

YET ANOTHER BLATANT EXAMPLE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST and why contributors should not be reviewers .

what the reviewer actually meant is :

if i approved these awesome shots, you will be LIMITing my own COMMERCIAL
earnings of my own portfolio. This is a big threat to me, as you will affect the VALUE of my future earning.

so, yes, they do have LIMITED COMMERCIAL VALUE... 

p.s.
if i were you, i'd raised one helluva stinker on SS. and maybe get them to fire this reviewer, and any others doing the same abuse of power.
failing that, if SS think it's not COI, i'd drop SS like a hot brick, no matter how much money they make for me.

Yeah, I've got to agree.

I've seen a lot of rejections posted, and received my own fair share of odd ones, but these are the most outrageous ever.

Limited commercial value?  What a joke! Honestly, the most ridiculous example of reviewer idiocy I've ever seen.

Quote from: PERSEUS on January 11, 2010, 16:54
YET ANOTHER BLATANT EXAMPLE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST and why contributors should not be reviewers .

SS reviewers are also contributors?    Do all agencies do that?

Quote from: NitorPhoto on January 11, 2010, 09:56
I am shocked. I got these images rejected at SS by Limited Commercial Value. What?!!!

That's ridiculous!   Resubmit them.

Quote from: Digital66 on January 11, 2010, 17:46

Quote from: PERSEUS on January 11, 2010, 16:54
YET ANOTHER BLATANT EXAMPLE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST and why contributors should not be reviewers .

SS reviewers are also contributors?    Do all agencies do that?

yes, and yes. 
in most cases, there is no problem of COI . but as much as we all hate to admit, or is too afraid to do so, in this case, it's obvious that we have a rogue reviewer who cannot be objective.

Quote from: PERSEUS on January 12, 2010, 02:00

Quote from: Digital66 on January 11, 2010, 17:46
SS reviewers are also contributors?    Do all agencies do that?

yes, and yes. 

Are you absolutely sure? - I never came across such information. Or is it only your suspicions?

And in general, is there any way of changing SS decisions about images but resubmitting them?

I don't understand and am so very frustrated.  I keep getting EVERY image reviewed DENIED because of focus!!!!  This has never happened before.  I look at all my photos at 100%.  I just don't see it.  These are portrait pictures, headshots, etc.  Some photos of animals, where I always take care to place the focus on the eyes.  Geez!  I'm dying here, please, someone, anyone, let me know when does Atilla sleep, I need to get some photos approved!!!!???

Quote from: Agnesh on January 12, 2010, 09:21

Quote from: PERSEUS on January 12, 2010, 02:00

Quote from: Digital66 on January 11, 2010, 17:46
SS reviewers are also contributors?    Do all agencies do that?

yes, and yes. 

Are you absolutely sure? - I never came across such information. Or is it only your suspicions?

And in general, is there any way of changing SS decisions about images but resubmitting them?

it's no secret that there are contributors who moonlight as reviewers.
as i said, in most cases, i don't have any objections to this loophole of Conflict of Interest, as most reviewers are able to set aside their own interest when they do their job as reviewers.
but there are times when we see something like this happening when a rejection judgement is glaringly one of conflict of interest, any idiot will know it has to be due to the fact that the reviewer is either a contributor or related to a contributor with such a portfolio.

if i am wrong, feel free to consider me an idiot.

This really sounds like too wild a theory to me. The above shots are very well covered subject. I doubt any reviewer would reject them to protect their portfolio when there are hundreds, thousands other competing image. It would not make any difference.

Wrong button or some other reason (like being in bad mood) sound much more realistically to me. Obviously the reason given for the rejection is irrelevant.

Quote from: sgcallaway1994 on January 12, 2010, 12:53
I don't understand and am so very frustrated.  I keep getting EVERY image reviewed DENIED because of focus!!!!  This has never happened before.  I look at all my photos at 100%.  I just don't see it.  These are portrait pictures, headshots, etc.  Some photos of animals, where I always take care to place the focus on the eyes.  Geez!  I'm dying here, please, someone, anyone, let me know when does Atilla sleep, I need to get some photos approved!!!!???

there is a certain reviewer who will reject you for "out of focus" in images with selective focus;
"lens flare" in images for highkey; and "noise and artifact" or "damaged pixels"(lol) in images of materials like velcro, corduroy, wool.
i've had some rejections in the past with such reviewers.
i don't bother trying to appeal, as it takes more energy out of my to appeal then to simply
ignore that site, and upload those images to the other Big 6.
and yes, in many cases, they get approved by the other Big 6 because a reviewer knew better.

the only time i would "appeal" a rejection is with IS when the reviewer specifies a certain condition in my rejected image. i correct that condition, and RESUBMIT. this almost always get me an approval rather quickly.

but that's not to say there are no COI reviewers in Istock. hell, yes, there is one there too,  you can't keep away those rogue reviewers, they're everywhere, and will continue to proliferate until someone points them out.

i know Achilles is highly adamant to ensure that no rogue reviewers work for him. so  i think , at least, with DT in 2010, we can be confident the reviewers will be less inclined to abuse with conflict of interest there.

Quote from: Digital66 on January 11, 2010, 17:47

Quote from: NitorPhoto on January 11, 2010, 09:56
I am shocked. I got these images rejected at SS by Limited Commercial Value. What?!!!

That's ridiculous!   Resubmit them.

Resubmitting to SS is not very good idea. You can get warning9 or something) for that, if they find out.

Quote from: Dook on January 12, 2010, 17:08

Quote from: Digital66 on January 11, 2010, 17:47

Quote from: NitorPhoto on January 11, 2010, 09:56
I am shocked. I got these images rejected at SS by Limited Commercial Value. What?!!!

That's ridiculous!   Resubmit them.

Resubmitting to SS is not very good idea. You can get warning9 or something) for that, if they find out.

not if you make some slight changed to the shot.
cc. or even cropping, or even flipping them   

the idea being that this could end up in the hands of another reviewer the next time, one who is not  bias 

The story continues.  All of the images below have been rejected with the same reason. Composition--Limited commercial value due to framing, cropping, and/or composition.

... and more but I can't attach more. I am thinking on to contact SS support.