Good days are over again in DT, Attila the reviewer strikes again with the "too similar" or "not what we are looking for" rejections 

Yeah I got nailed on my last review too.  Too similar and poor execution (right if they'd look at the eps files first I don't have rough edges).  2 out of 8.  I'm used to maybe at least one or no rejections in a batch.

Honestly, at DT, when this mass rejections happen,  i don't worry much about ( not even try re-submit something ), because they refuse what almost ALL other agency would accept, but they do accept what all other agency don't accept LOL.

Low sales it's true ( for me ), but mostly are that "strange awful" images

For me as "newbie trying seeing the best way to get some results", it seems, that happens with all agency's without exception. Today is DT, tomorrow is SS, 123RF... and so on.

Quote from: PedroV on September 27, 2011, 14:47
Good days are over again in DT, Attila the reviewer strikes again with the "too similar" or "not what we are looking for" rejections 

Actually I think Attila became a regular employee at DT 

I did a submission on Friday of 56 images to various agencies.  Of the results I know of so far....

DT accepted all but 3 - the three that were refused were due to being similar.
BS refused 25 of the images for being out of focus
SS refused 24 of the images for being out of focus

7 of the product shots I submitted were out of focus at BigStock, but were in focus at Shutterstock (all of my product shots were accepted at Shutterstock).

DT is the most reasonable of the top tier agencies with relation to reviews.  In fact, the reason I do so well at DT is because of the SAME portfolio submitted everywhere, they have accepted more images of mine than any other agency (with the exception of Alamy - and from a revenue perspective, Alamy is still my biggest earner).

Lately they have only been accepting one angle per isolated object....  their policy is hurting future sales. 

Update - 55 of 56 accepted at 123RF...the one that was rejected was for "minimal commercial value"

No!  on the contrary, I find the DT reviewing very professional, the DT reviewers can in fact handle any picture language and if they say its too similar, then probably it is too similar.
Dont forget, reviewing is a human process and ofcourse its open for mistakes, so is everything. In fact all the 4 top tier agencies are on the whole pretty fair in the actaul reviewing process.

Quote from: lagereek on September 28, 2011, 07:46
No!  on the contrary, I find the DT reviewing very professional, the DT reviewers can in fact handle any picture language and if they say its too similar, then probably it is too similar.
Dont forget, reviewing is a human process and ofcourse its open for mistakes, so is everything. In fact all the 4 top tier agencies are on the whole pretty fair in the actaul reviewing process.

Yes I agree with you. At DT I rarely get a refusal but when I do they are invariably right.

The "not what we are looking for" line from DT used to really bug me, but because most of those files are being downloaded on other sites it really doesn't bother me too much anymore. 

Quote from: lagereek on September 28, 2011, 07:46
No!  on the contrary, I find the DT reviewing very professional, the DT reviewers can in fact handle any picture language and if they say its too similar, then probably it is too similar.
Dont forget, reviewing is a human process and ofcourse its open for mistakes, so is everything. In fact all the 4 top tier agencies are on the whole pretty fair in the actaul reviewing process.

They are plain perfect, just like me

Funny!   as we speak, this morning I uploaded 8 shots,  they all came back, 20 minutes ago,  " too similar"  I uploaded the same shots last night to SS, and all accepted by two,  three of the shots have already sold at SS, four times!

There you go, win some, lose some,  nothing to beef about.

Out of a recent batch of 26, DT refused all of them and SS accepted all of them.  It's my first 100% rejection at DT, and the first time ever I've had the same batch rejected 100% on one site and accepted 100% on another.  Figure that one out!   

Quote from: csproductions on September 29, 2011, 00:02
Out of a recent batch of 26, DT refused all of them and SS accepted all of them.  It's my first 100% rejection at DT, and the first time ever I've had the same batch rejected 100% on one site and accepted 100% on another.  Figure that one out!   

Ha - could get that with nearly every batch if I include IS with the other 3 

Quote from: csproductions on September 29, 2011, 00:02
Out of a recent batch of 26, DT refused all of them and SS accepted all of them.  It's my first 100% rejection at DT, and the first time ever I've had the same batch rejected 100% on one site and accepted 100% on another.  Figure that one out!   

WOW!^  What was the rejection reason on DT?

I don't sent batches to DT anymore, one photo at a time. It works.

Quote from: Mantis on October 01, 2011, 21:46

Quote from: csproductions on September 29, 2011, 00:02
Out of a recent batch of 26, DT refused all of them and SS accepted all of them.  It's my first 100% rejection at DT, and the first time ever I've had the same batch rejected 100% on one site and accepted 100% on another.  Figure that one out!   

WOW!^  What was the rejection reason on DT?

"The subject of this image is not isolated. Please do not use words in title, description or keywords that are irrelevant for your image. The same is valid for the category Objects > Isolated.
This image is overfiltered. Its use for the potential designers is limited because of this, therefore the image is disqualified as a RF stock-oriented image. Please upload the original instead.
- Poor background removal. There are strange artifacts left on the background / The margins of your subject(s) are distorted or look unnatural against the background."

Note:  There was no background removal.  The background in the photo is the background that was used in the studio.  Also interesting is the fact that this was the first photo from the batch to sell, and it sold the on the same day that it was approved on SS. 

If you described it as isolated I can see why it might be rejected - nice pic though!

Quote from: csproductions on October 02, 2011, 20:14

Quote from: Mantis on October 01, 2011, 21:46

Quote from: csproductions on September 29, 2011, 00:02
Out of a recent batch of 26, DT refused all of them and SS accepted all of them.  It's my first 100% rejection at DT, and the first time ever I've had the same batch rejected 100% on one site and accepted 100% on another.  Figure that one out!  

WOW!^  What was the rejection reason on DT?

"The subject of this image is not isolated. Please do not use words in title, description or keywords that are irrelevant for your image. The same is valid for the category Objects > Isolated.
This image is overfiltered. Its use for the potential designers is limited because of this, therefore the image is disqualified as a RF stock-oriented image. Please upload the original instead.
- Poor background removal. There are strange artifacts left on the background / The margins of your subject(s) are distorted or look unnatural against the background."

Note:  There was no background removal.  The background in the photo is the background that was used in the studio.  Also interesting is the fact that this was the first photo from the batch to sell, and it sold the on the same day that it was approved on SS.  

Interesting.  Was it keyworded with "isolated" or used "isolation" in the title or description?

Yes, I did use the keyword, "isolated." Does anyone else see the conflicting rejection reasons here (Image is not isolated / poor background removal...)?  Does anyone else see the vast difference between SS's acceptance (no problem with my keywords) and DT's rejections?

If the reviewer/site thinks that isolated means the background is all one color, or even more stringent all 0,0,0 or 255,255,255 for RGB then isolated is definitely not a suitable keyword for that image (or the image is very poorly isolated).

I don't know about SS as far as what they consider isolated, but their database is pretty full of what appear to be spammed keywords.

And DT has recently cracked down even more on the use of the word isolated. They don't want photo objects with even small shadows to contain the keyword isolated. They seem to be on a big clean-up campaign of non-sellers and bad keywords. Not a bad thing.

So "isolated" means electronic background replacement and no shadows?

I'd only use the word 'isolated' if I can click the background with the magic wand, reverse it, and then have a completely clean selection on the subject with no stray elements of shadows, background or anything else.

For your image, I'd use keywords like:

woman, young, blonde, business, touch screen, touching, screen, buttons, rectangle, technology, finger, grey background, glamorous, long hair... etc.

...but I can't see that this is isolated at all.  If you cleanly selected her with the pen tool, cut her out, and dropped her back in, then I'd say you had an isolation.

This is why I don't bother with isolations - too much blimmin' work 

it was mentioned by Dreamstime directly (a few weeks ago) that "isolated" means pure white or black and no shadows. Like it or not, but that is their official policy.