Quote from: eggshell on October 12, 2010, 15:54

I should've expected all this "a newbie dares bashing another user's work" attitude . It's so more manly to stand behind some ironic remarks .

It's hard to imagine what kind of response you were expecting with such a melodramatic thread title, help from the UN ?

Don't bash other people's work if you are not willing to show yours.

What do you expect from this forum by simply picking a portfolio that you believe is inferior compared to yours without showing it?

Waste of time.

Another awesome thread   

guys let's respect eggshell..!

New Sites / Low Earners / New Sites - General / Re: StockFresh - from Peter Hamza and Andras Pfaff       on: August 04, 2010, 02:25
Got accepted two weeks ago . Snappy upload and very fast image approval ( within few  hours ) .
Clean and user friendly layout . Overall - very pleasant site experience

eheheheh I feel pretty bad now... still waiting eheh

Quote from: thesentinel on October 12, 2010, 16:30
It's hard to imagine what kind of response you were expecting with such a melodramatic thread title, help from the UN ?

ETA:  Luis, each to their own opinion, but I don't feel that being accepted at Stockfresh makes it acceptable for someone to openly display and bash someone else's portfolio. 

Quote from: eggshell on October 12, 2010, 12:37
I got my first "Limited commercial value" rejection today on a credit card super macro shot . Looking through the newest images on that same subject I stumbled upon this port - http://www.shutterstock.com/results.mhtml#page=1&gallery_id=434212

I was amazed by the poor photography - lighting , composition ( the lack of ) , subject choice ...
These are pretty recent submissions , not some relics from the dawn of microstock . These are not 10-15 accidently approved shots . There's no way this port was built going through the normal approval process . What's the point of raising the quality bar if this kind of work still finds its way in agency's catalog ?

you shouldn't be surpirised, altho they make a lot of money, these are pretty ragtag companies, with an inspection policy and crew that is at best amateurish, and always inconsistent. Imho they simply throw people at unfilled positions like a kid would slap a handful of wet sand in a sandcastle. If the cue is too big, I bet you they would drag in granpa, granma, and just someone from the street walking by, tell 'em they don't want shadows and weird stuff like that, and there you go. : )) I had shot that were rejected for LCV, poor lighting, comp, all at the same, accepted right the next batch, and sell too. You just shuouldn't give a flying f**k about it

Quote from: rubyroo on October 12, 2010, 16:53

Quote from: thesentinel on October 12, 2010, 16:30
It's hard to imagine what kind of response you were expecting with such a melodramatic thread title, help from the UN ?

ETA:  Luis, each to their own opinion, but I don't feel that being accepted at Stockfresh makes it acceptable for someone to openly display and bash someone else's portfolio. 

of course not, I didn't said I agree on the bashing.. it is just a curiosity

Quote from: luissantos84 on October 12, 2010, 17:26
of course not, I didn't said I agree on the bashing.. it is just a curiosity

Ah... fair enough Luis.  I suppose it will remain a curiosity if we can't see his/her port.   

Quote from: rubyroo on October 12, 2010, 17:38

Quote from: luissantos84 on October 12, 2010, 17:26
of course not, I didn't said I agree on the bashing.. it is just a curiosity

Ah... fair enough Luis.  I suppose it will remain a curiosity if we can't see his/her port.   

Probably hasn't been accepted anywhere.  Just "'avin' a laugh."  Easy enough to fake.

fred

Quote from: Fred on October 12, 2010, 18:15

Quote from: rubyroo on October 12, 2010, 17:38

Quote from: luissantos84 on October 12, 2010, 17:26
of course not, I didn't said I agree on the bashing.. it is just a curiosity

Ah... fair enough Luis.  I suppose it will remain a curiosity if we can't see his/her port.   

Probably hasn't been accepted anywhere.  Just "'avin' a laugh."  Easy enough to fake.

fred

jeeez.. let's hear what he/she has to say

Quote from: eggshell on October 12, 2010, 12:37
I got my first "Limited commercial value" rejection today on a credit card super macro shot . Looking through the newest images on that same subject I stumbled upon this port - http://www.shutterstock.com/results.mhtml#page=1&gallery_id=434212

I was amazed by the poor photography - lighting , composition ( the lack of ) , subject choice ...
These are pretty recent submissions , not some relics from the dawn of microstock . These are not 10-15 accidently approved shots . There's no way this port was built going through the normal approval process . What's the point of raising the quality bar if this kind of work still finds its way in agency's catalog ?

Show us your rejected image, so we can discuss more precise about your anger.

QuoteDon't bash other people's work if you are not willing to show yours.

Sure, mail MSG to add it to the terms of service

QuoteWhat do you expect from this forum by simply picking a portfolio that you believe is inferior compared to yours without showing it?

I was expecting an objective opinion on the quality of the shown work and the criteria that was applied to accept it . What I get are several types of reactions ranging from those who's work is similar quality and take this as a personal attack at them , those who see the poor quality but being pc don't accept the aggressive tone , those who demand to see a port but for years never bothered to show theirs , those who don't even submit to SS but see an opportunity "to put a newbie in his place" , to finish with those making completely paranoid assumptions based I suppose on their own way of acting in life .

Saying this I understand those reluctant to judge the work of people that are not present to defend themselves

Quote from: eggshell on October 12, 2010, 19:06
Saying this I understand those reluctant to judge the work of people that are not present to defend themselves

FWIW, I'm pleased to see you acknowledge that.  I think if people willingly post their own work here and ask for a critique, then they will have prepared themselves and opened themselves for possibly negative opinions.  To have it done without their consent, and in their absence is the thing I have a problem with.  Nothing to do with being 'pc' at all.  It's a standard social etiquette that goes back hundreds of years... (not that I'm that old...)

Quote from: thesentinel on October 12, 2010, 16:30

It's hard to imagine what kind of response you were expecting with such a melodramatic thread title, help from the UN ?

ROFLMAO!! 

Man up and show us your rejected image. What are you afraid of?

Quote from: Microbius on October 12, 2010, 16:20

Quote from: eggshell on October 12, 2010, 14:25

Quote
Why don't you show us your magnificent amazing wonderful portfolio?

Why I'd want to do that ?!
If I had a large port based on diverse niches I wouldn't mind sharing . Mine's still very small exploiting majorly one not very well covered niche . So , pardon my selfishness but I'm not sharing . But judging by your tone you sure sound like someone with extraordinary abilities in the field of microstock . And please next time use "show me" not "show us" . You're not MSG

The not very well covered niche of macro credit card shots?

Thanks, that's what I was laughing at on my side, but didn't write. Oh, secret not well covered niche, I can't show you my work.

When it's not top secret, need to know basis anymore "eggshell" come back and show us your work, instead of coming into the forum guns blazing, shouting about the rejection, complaining about someone else's shots that were accepted, and you forgot to put your pants on and load your guns. In other words, show US your work and you'll have much more credibility and more people will tend to debate with you about the issues.

I suppose in defense I get pissed off when I get a NCV for a shot, especially when I have similar shots already with that place, which are my best sellers there? On the agency side, my best sellers aren't selling that well, so maybe they are right?

I do have my personal solution, which is, blow it off and hope that they will sell someplace else and the dumbass place that rejected them, is losing business. If they sell someplace else, I get the satisfaction that the reviewer or policy was wrong. But it's not worth getting all excited about, because some reviewers are clueless and working for 5c an image, not because they have talent or are highly qualified. Consider the source of the rejection and you'll feel much better Eggshell.

Quote from: Danicek on October 12, 2010, 14:55

Quote from: rubyroo on October 12, 2010, 14:37
I'm still wondering why this thread is titled 'Intolerable Cruelty'(?)

It was intolerably cruel to reject the "credit card super macro shot".

I thad thought I would see those famous photos of crying babies....

Then there was this guy driving on the wrong side of the freeway meeting all the morons...

I took a brief look at the portfolio mentioned by eggshell.  It's not terrible by any means, but I somewhat agree with eggshell that if these are recent submissions, they're not what I'd expect to see approved.  But who knows.  Sometimes I think buyers are subconciously choosing images based  qualities of color, light and a certain flat, bland, safe look that is a bit alien to people who actually like doing photography.  I'd certainly describe those images as bland, even by stock standards. Almost deliberately so.  And oddly framed in some cases - again, maybe this what a lot of buyers really want.

Quote from: stockastic on October 13, 2010, 02:01
I took a brief look at the portfolio mentioned by eggshell.  It's not terrible by any means, but I somewhat agree with eggshell that if these are recent submissions, they're not what I'd expect to see approved.  But who knows.  Sometimes I think buyers are subconciously choosing images based  qualities of color, light and a certain flat, bland, safe look that is a bit alien to people who actually like doing photography.  I'd certainly describe those images as bland, even by stock standards. Almost deliberately so.  And oddly framed in some cases - again, maybe this what a lot of buyers really want.

I guess eggshell was a lot nicier than your statment..

Quote from: molka on October 12, 2010, 17:23

Quote from: eggshell on October 12, 2010, 12:37
I got my first "Limited commercial value" rejection today on a credit card super macro shot . Looking through the newest images on that same subject I stumbled upon this port - http://www.shutterstock.com/results.mhtml#page=1&gallery_id=434212

I was amazed by the poor photography - lighting , composition ( the lack of ) , subject choice ...
These are pretty recent submissions , not some relics from the dawn of microstock . These are not 10-15 accidently approved shots . There's no way this port was built going through the normal approval process . What's the point of raising the quality bar if this kind of work still finds its way in agency's catalog ?

you shouldn't be surpirised, altho they make a lot of money, these are pretty ragtag companies, with an inspection policy and crew that is at best amateurish, and always inconsistent. Imho they simply throw people at unfilled positions like a kid would slap a handful of wet sand in a sandcastle. If the cue is too big, I bet you they would drag in granpa, granma, and just someone from the street walking by, tell 'em they don't want shadows and weird stuff like that, and there you go. : )) I had shot that were rejected for LCV, poor lighting, comp, all at the same, accepted right the next batch, and sell too. You just shuouldn't give a flying f**k about it

What do you call a troll feeding a troll ?

Entrollment?

Trolley Intercourse?

Mutal trollerbation?

Quote from: rubyroo on October 13, 2010, 08:46
Entrollment?

Trolley Intercourse?

Mutal trollerbation?

I was thinking trollacanibal

Quote from: stockastic on October 13, 2010, 02:01
It's not terrible by any means, but I somewhat agree with eggshell that if these are recent submissions, they're not what I'd expect to see approved.

What even by Shutterstock standards? I'd surprised if I saw some of those images on the other sites, for SS it's pretty solid quality. Most of that portfolio would have sold multiple times.
In any case, not bad enough to call out as being somehow dubious and indicative of a reviewing conspiracy, but lets not forget that eggshell's the guy who thought there was a third world conspiracy to view his 50 or so images on Fotolia hundreds of times to make them lose position in the search results. cuckoo

Quote from: eggshyt on October 12, 2010, 14:25So , pardon my selfishness but I'm not sharing

In that case you have nothing to say, anonymous slandering moron. Pardon my selfishness to ignore you in the future. My time is worth more. Ploink.