Author Topic: a classic rejection (Read 6124 times)

stockastic · « **on:** May 11, 2010, 13:53 »

I recently had an image rejected as "too filtered", appealed to Scout, and was told that "renders should have a photo-realistic appearance".

This was in fact a photo, not a rendering. But I guess it wasn't 'real' enough. Maybe I should have added some noise

alias · « **Reply #1 on:** May 11, 2010, 14:02 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 11, 2010, 13:53

I recently had an image rejected as "too filtered", appealed to Scout, and was told that "renders should have a photo-realistic appearance".

This was in fact a photo, not a rendering. But I guess it wasn't 'real' enough. Maybe I should have added some noise

Why not take this to the IS critique forum ?

Or you could even post a link to a full size version of the image here and let's see it for ourselves. Maybe someone here will be able to explain this apparent misunderstanding and we will all learn something from the process.

That way turning negativity into something positive, useful and refreshing.

stockastic · « **Reply #2 on:** May 11, 2010, 14:05 »

I've already spent too much time futilely trying to please IS. In this case I just wanted to share a laugh.

As usual, all the other sites I submitted it to accepted it.

alias · « **Reply #3 on:** May 11, 2010, 14:14 »

Maybe they have lower standards then ?

Come on though - let's see the image then we get an idea what the issues might be. Either with your image or with the inspection process at IS or at the sites which accepted it.

It would be nice to see a convention emerge here - no venting about rejections unless we can see the image.

Good luck.

cathyslife · « **Reply #4 on:** May 11, 2010, 14:31 »

Quote from: alias on May 11, 2010, 14:14

Maybe they have lower standards then ?

I wonder why this is the stock answer to explain why others accept a photo when IS rejects it, when there are just as many incidences where IS accepts a photo that others reject. So by this all-too-frequently-posted-here logic, they ALL must have lower standards!

alias · « **Reply #5 on:** May 11, 2010, 14:46 »

Quote from: cclapper on May 11, 2010, 14:31

Quote from: alias on May 11, 2010, 14:14
Maybe they have lower standards then ?

I wonder why this is the stock answer to explain why others accept a photo when IS rejects it, when there are just as many incidences where IS accepts a photo that others reject. So by this all-too-frequently-posted-here logic, they ALL must have lower standards!

Well my "maybe" implies logical uncertainty. If we see the image then we can understand better any issues. Impartially.

There is no doubt that IS has higher standards than some other sites and we don't know where the image has been accepted. So it's all a bit vague ATM.

stockastic · « **Reply #6 on:** May 11, 2010, 15:37 »

alias, I don't post images here because I want to remain anonymous. Like you.

More rejections doesn't necessarily mean 'higher' standards. It might just mean less consistency in reviewing.

alias · « **Reply #7 on:** May 11, 2010, 16:22 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 11, 2010, 15:37

I want to remain anonymous. Like you.

I think that using an alias comes with certain limitations. There are some things we cannot usefully say without providing specific examples.

Being positive, the critique forums at IS and other sites provide a fantastic opportunity for us to learn where we are going wrong with our work and in terms of what standards the different sites are looking for.

stockastic · « **Reply #8 on:** May 11, 2010, 16:35 »

Quote from: alias on May 11, 2010, 16:22

Being positive, the critique forums at IS and other sites provide a fantastic opportunity for us to learn where we are going wrong with our work.

Only if the people posting there actually represent IStock's point of view. Otherwise it's a waste of time - one can always find plenty of people ready to find flaws in a photo - flaws that might be insignificant, or have nothing to with the actual rejection.

In this case I don't feel anything was 'going wrong' with my work - I think they just didn't like it, but couldn't articulate why. Let's just laugh and move on. Mistaking a photo for a rendering, and then saying it wasn't "photo realisitic", tells me I'm wasting my time with stuff like this at IS.

michaeldb · « **Reply #9 on:** May 11, 2010, 20:48 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 11, 2010, 16:35

...In this case I don't feel anything was 'going wrong' with my work - I think they just didn't like it, but couldn't articulate why....

Yes. 'couldn't articulate why' or wouldn't articulate why. If you were an exclusive would the image have been rejected? We can only guess.

Some people are intent on defending IS's every action, no matter how absurd or unfair. If you say that your image was rejected for a 'reason' which was patently incorrect, why should anyone doubt you?

VB inc · « **Reply #10 on:** May 11, 2010, 21:50 »

Quote from: cclapper on May 11, 2010, 14:31

Quote from: alias on May 11, 2010, 14:14
Maybe they have lower standards then ?

I wonder why this is the stock answer to explain why others accept a photo when IS rejects it, when there are just as many incidences where IS accepts a photo that others reject. So by this all-too-frequently-posted-here logic, they ALL must have lower standards!

I believe the OP only gripes about istock's high standards. He wants to share a laugh, but i just keep hearing the same message.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #11 on:** May 11, 2010, 22:17 »

Quote from: michaeldb on May 11, 2010, 20:48

Quote from: stockastic on May 11, 2010, 16:35
...In this case I don't feel anything was 'going wrong' with my work - I think they just didn't like it, but couldn't articulate why....
Yes. 'couldn't articulate why' or wouldn't articulate why. If you were an exclusive would the image have been rejected? We can only guess.

In my experience I haven't seen any difference with how IS reviews images before or after I went exclusive. My approval rate only improved when I started shooting more saleable subjects, using better equipment, with improved processing skills.

click_click · « **Reply #12 on:** May 12, 2010, 08:50 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 11, 2010, 13:53

I recently had an image rejected as "too filtered", appealed to Scout, and was told that "renders should have a photo-realistic appearance".

This was in fact a photo, not a rendering. But I guess it wasn't 'real' enough. Maybe I should have added some noise

It happened to me the other way around.

I rendered an image and added the keyword "illustration" for which the image got rejected.

The inspector wrote that I cannot add the keyword "illustration" for a photo.

Lately it appears that inspectors are slacking a bit when it comes to differentiating between photos and renders...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: a classic rejection (Read 6124 times)

stockastic

alias

stockastic

alias

cathyslife

alias

stockastic

alias

stockastic

michaeldb

VB inc

PaulieWalnuts

click_click

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors