Author Topic: Here we go again! (Read 12926 times)

lagereek · « **on:** November 22, 2010, 04:22 »

Has anybody else come accross some weird reviewing, type what we had during summer? funny I just had a reviewer telling me same old crummy stuff about 2 machine-part shots, yet theyve already sold 28 times in less then a week.

He said "no on camera flash" when it was studio-flash, some 10000 joules power. Oh well. talk about part-time reviewing.

Its beginning to show, IS, does not want independants to supply and especially not bona-fide commercial sellers.

Noodles · « **Reply #1 on:** November 22, 2010, 05:38 »

that title just transported me back to those lazy weekends listening to "Davy's on the road again" Anyways, why not post the pic in question so we can see.


Manfred Mann's Earth Band - Davy's on the road again (Live)

Quote from: lagereek on November 22, 2010, 04:22

Has anybody else come accross some weird reviewing, type what we had during summer? funny I just had a reviewer telling me same old crummy stuff about 2 machine-part shots, yet theyve already sold 28 times in less then a week.

He said "no on camera flash" when it was studio-flash, some 10000 joules power. Oh well. talk about part-time reviewing.

Its beginning to show, IS, does not want independants to supply and especially not bona-fide commercial sellers.

molka · « **Reply #2 on:** November 22, 2010, 06:23 »

Maybe that's not really IS's intention, they are just being stupid. Having contributors as inspectors is an extremely dumb idea to start with. You gonna get the pricks who reject shots out of envy or competiton, and let their the junk get thru anytime. I did browse into on some of these guys shots, looking at recent things, and oops, series of modell shots, almost all that I looked at were OOF, if you panned you could see the focus landed behing the girl's back on the sofa. Looked at another port, zooming in the first image, a family shot, motion blurred, OOF, lots of noise, all at the sime time... grats. The situation is pretty obvious and verrry professional. : )

As for technical issues, IS seems to have like a couple of reviewers that know a bit about images, the rest are some dumbos who went from doing "a spill on isle 5" to happily vawing around his/her first dslr and almost instantly becoming 'JohnJoe photography' with some crap template site... and than landing as inspectors. They give rejections for bad isolation on images that aren't isolated, taking cloth texture for noise... but they don't seem to mind things like last weeks free file that 'beauty shot' where the guy blurred the whole * face, cut few holes for the eyes etc, and filled the rest with texture from some leather suitcase : ) it's horrible. : ) The pohotog had some nice shots otherwise, but IS posting that as a free hires file for everyone to look at what they might offer... pure dilettantism : ) Tipical trait of the clueless amateur is going all zealot on a tiny patch of t noise that no creative would care a rat's ass about, and wouldn't even be visible in print, thinking that busting each pixel is professionalism, but letting thru stuff that makes a graphic artist wanna poke his own eyes out with a rusty nail.

dk · « **Reply #3 on:** November 22, 2010, 10:07 »

I have to agree there's no consistency in reviews and it's not just istock.

Last night a reviewer approved 6 of my files in a row - no rejections. This morning another reviewer rejected 6 files in a row - no approvals.

Same photographer - different reviewer!

lagereek · « **Reply #4 on:** November 22, 2010, 10:24 »

Jeez! I mean Ive kind of been reviewing, working with and editing digital stuff since the early days of Drumscanning like since the mid freeakin 80s and up pops some lollipop that cant even tell the diff between a cheapo on camera flash and a studio-flash set-up for about 45K.

Correct! there are a few very good reviewers at IS but most sadly, by the look of it, they have probably jumped ship

helix7 · « **Reply #5 on:** November 22, 2010, 11:21 »

Quote from: dk on November 22, 2010, 10:07

I have to agree there's no consistency in reviews and it's not just istock...

There's inconsistencies everywhere, but istock has a particularly biased review process when it comes to exclusive vs. non-exclusive images. There's just stuff that exclusive artists can get approved that independents cannot.

There's no way I can get spray paint elements approved at istock unless they're composed in an design. Individual spray paint and brush stroke elements in black, not going to happen for me. But if there's a crown next to your name, they'll go through. I submitted one of these images to Scout once and it got rejected again with the response that they are no longer accepting individual grunge elements like that anymore, and haven't for a while. B.S. You can find these images showing up in the portfolios of exclusive artists in just the last month.

lagereek · « **Reply #6 on:** November 22, 2010, 11:24 »

Quote from: helix7 on November 22, 2010, 11:21

Quote from: dk on November 22, 2010, 10:07
I have to agree there's no consistency in reviews and it's not just istock...

There's inconsistencies everywhere, but istock has a particularly biased review process when it comes to exclusive vs. non-exclusive images. There's just stuff that exclusive artists can get approved that independents cannot.

There's no way I can get spray paint elements approved at istock unless they're composed in an design. Individual spray paint and brush stroke elements in black, not going to happen for me. But if there's a crown next to your name, they'll go through. I submitted one of these images to Scout once and it got rejected again with the response that they are no longer accepting individual grunge elements like that anymore, and haven't for a while. B.S. You can find these images showing up in the portfolios of exclusive artists in just the last month.

Scout

??. six months waiting time and theyre as blind as bats, ask RT? Ha, ha.

ShadySue · « **Reply #7 on:** November 22, 2010, 11:32 »

Quote from: helix7 on November 22, 2010, 11:21

Quote from: dk on November 22, 2010, 10:07
I have to agree there's no consistency in reviews and it's not just istock...
There's inconsistencies everywhere, but istock has a particularly biased review process when it comes to exclusive vs. non-exclusive images. There's just stuff that exclusive artists can get approved that independents cannot.

I'm exclusive and my rejection rate has shot up - usually for bad light. Apparently natural rainforest light isn't acceptable, and neither is most of what I take in Scotland, and neither was sunny Memphis in October, bright light and clear blue skies. No matter, all 'bad light'. I've all but given up. Oh, but some of my most recent acceptances will never sell: I just put up to see what would happen, and they confounded me by getting accepted.

vonkara · « **Reply #8 on:** November 22, 2010, 11:47 »

Quote from: lagereek on November 22, 2010, 04:22

Has anybody else come accross some weird reviewing, type what we had during summer? funny I just had a reviewer telling me same old crummy stuff about 2 machine-part shots, yet theyve already sold 28 times in less then a week.

He said "no on camera flash" when it was studio-flash, some 10000 joules power. Oh well. talk about part-time reviewing.

Its beginning to show, IS, does not want independants to supply and especially not bona-fide commercial sellers.

Show the pictures, 1000W without lightboxes = harsh camera flash light

lagereek · « **Reply #9 on:** November 22, 2010, 11:58 »

Quote from: Vonkara on November 22, 2010, 11:47

Quote from: lagereek on November 22, 2010, 04:22
Has anybody else come accross some weird reviewing, type what we had during summer? funny I just had a reviewer telling me same old crummy stuff about 2 machine-part shots, yet theyve already sold 28 times in less then a week.

He said "no on camera flash" when it was studio-flash, some 10000 joules power. Oh well. talk about part-time reviewing.

Its beginning to show, IS, does not want independants to supply and especially not bona-fide commercial sellers.

Show the pictures, 1000W without lightboxes = harsh camera flash light

Nah! much more power then that! If theres one thing I know its studio photography, been doing it since 1980, I cant even be bothered to be honest, thats the kind of state Ive reached when it comes to incompetant reviewing. Fed up with it.

Phadrea · « **Reply #10 on:** November 23, 2010, 03:32 »

I'm exclusive and always had everything accepted, more so when I went exclusive. Now I hardly get an acceptance and it's not worth my time. I get frustratingly contradictory rejection reasons I just give up with them. I don't shoot for them anymore and am thinking of giving up my exclusivity.

Magnum · « **Reply #11 on:** November 23, 2010, 05:22 »

Quote from: lagereek on November 22, 2010, 11:58

Quote from: Vonkara on November 22, 2010, 11:47
Quote from: lagereek on November 22, 2010, 04:22
Has anybody else come accross some weird reviewing, type what we had during summer? funny I just had a reviewer telling me same old crummy stuff about 2 machine-part shots, yet theyve already sold 28 times in less then a week.

He said "no on camera flash" when it was studio-flash, some 10000 joules power. Oh well. talk about part-time reviewing.

Its beginning to show, IS, does not want independants to supply and especially not bona-fide commercial sellers.

Show the pictures, 1000W without lightboxes = harsh camera flash light

Nah! much more power then that! If theres one thing I know its studio photography, been doing it since 1980, I cant even be bothered to be honest, thats the kind of state Ive reached when it comes to incompetant reviewing. Fed up with it.

So show us the picture. If you know studio photography so well, what´s the big deal ?

lagereek · « **Reply #12 on:** November 23, 2010, 06:02 »

Quote from: Magnum on November 23, 2010, 05:22

Quote from: lagereek on November 22, 2010, 11:58
Quote from: Vonkara on November 22, 2010, 11:47
Quote from: lagereek on November 22, 2010, 04:22
Has anybody else come accross some weird reviewing, type what we had during summer? funny I just had a reviewer telling me same old crummy stuff about 2 machine-part shots, yet theyve already sold 28 times in less then a week.

He said "no on camera flash" when it was studio-flash, some 10000 joules power. Oh well. talk about part-time reviewing.

Its beginning to show, IS, does not want independants to supply and especially not bona-fide commercial sellers.

Show the pictures, 1000W without lightboxes = harsh camera flash light

Nah! much more power then that! If theres one thing I know its studio photography, been doing it since 1980, I cant even be bothered to be honest, thats the kind of state Ive reached when it comes to incompetant reviewing. Fed up with it.

So show us the picture. If you know studio photography so well, what´s the big deal ?

Why? are you qualified then? here you go.

molka · « **Reply #13 on:** November 23, 2010, 07:16 »

nice. now the babies will might for the few pixels of blown highlight, and the whole thing not looking like CG : )

lagereek · « **Reply #14 on:** November 23, 2010, 07:46 »

Quote from: molka on November 23, 2010, 07:16

nice. now the babies will might for the few pixels of blown highlight, and the whole thing not looking like CG : )

No these type of engineering industry plus oil-industry are my hallmarks, these titanium gears are selling in thousands, this particular one has got a highlight of 242 and shadows of 3, not blown in-camera either, look at my port at IS, and you see what I mean, its accepted as well at ALL the major micros, just this particular reviewer, didnt know his business, they very seldom do nowdays.

Magnum · « **Reply #15 on:** November 23, 2010, 08:02 »

Quote from: lagereek on November 23, 2010, 06:02

Quote from: Magnum on November 23, 2010, 05:22
Quote from: lagereek on November 22, 2010, 11:58
Quote from: Vonkara on November 22, 2010, 11:47
Quote from: lagereek on November 22, 2010, 04:22
Has anybody else come accross some weird reviewing, type what we had during summer? funny I just had a reviewer telling me same old crummy stuff about 2 machine-part shots, yet theyve already sold 28 times in less then a week.

He said "no on camera flash" when it was studio-flash, some 10000 joules power. Oh well. talk about part-time reviewing.

Its beginning to show, IS, does not want independants to supply and especially not bona-fide commercial sellers.

Show the pictures, 1000W without lightboxes = harsh camera flash light

Nah! much more power then that! If theres one thing I know its studio photography, been doing it since 1980, I cant even be bothered to be honest, thats the kind of state Ive reached when it comes to incompetant reviewing. Fed up with it.

So show us the picture. If you know studio photography so well, what´s the big deal ?

Why? are you qualified then? here you go.

No I´m not qualified in titanium gear studio shots. I just wanted to see what you were whining about. It looks good. Maybe the reviewer reads this forum...

lagereek · « **Reply #16 on:** November 23, 2010, 08:07 »

Quote from: Magnum on November 23, 2010, 08:02

Quote from: lagereek on November 23, 2010, 06:02
Quote from: Magnum on November 23, 2010, 05:22
Quote from: lagereek on November 22, 2010, 11:58
Quote from: Vonkara on November 22, 2010, 11:47
Quote from: lagereek on November 22, 2010, 04:22
Has anybody else come accross some weird reviewing, type what we had during summer? funny I just had a reviewer telling me same old crummy stuff about 2 machine-part shots, yet theyve already sold 28 times in less then a week.

He said "no on camera flash" when it was studio-flash, some 10000 joules power. Oh well. talk about part-time reviewing.

Its beginning to show, IS, does not want independants to supply and especially not bona-fide commercial sellers.

Show the pictures, 1000W without lightboxes = harsh camera flash light

Nah! much more power then that! If theres one thing I know its studio photography, been doing it since 1980, I cant even be bothered to be honest, thats the kind of state Ive reached when it comes to incompetant reviewing. Fed up with it.

So show us the picture. If you know studio photography so well, what´s the big deal ?

Why? are you qualified then? here you go.

No I´m not qualified in titanium gear studio shots. I just wanted to see what you were whining about. It looks good. Maybe the reviewer reads this forum...

Thanks!

jbarber873 · « **Reply #17 on:** November 23, 2010, 08:08 »

I think the shot is excellent. The problem with the reviewers is as much a problem with the clients. They substitute pixel by pixel perfection for any kind of ability to understand how to communicate an idea. If you can get something past them, there are people who will see and like it, but for the most part the users of microstock prefer mush. I sell a lot more mush than anything else.

heywoody · « **Reply #18 on:** November 23, 2010, 08:32 »

Anyone read Terry Pratchett? There's a scene in one book where "the auditors" are decomposing art into its constituent atoms in an attempt to understand it - kinda reminded me of the mindset being discussed here....

lisafx · « **Reply #19 on:** November 23, 2010, 09:30 »

I think that photo is outstanding, Christian. Can't see any reason it should have been rejected.

There is a thread on IS forums welcoming new inspectors. Sounds like they have hired quite a few of them. Maybe the training process needs to be improved...?

lagereek · « **Reply #20 on:** November 23, 2010, 09:49 »

Quote from: lisafx on November 23, 2010, 09:30

I think that photo is outstanding, Christian. Can't see any reason it should have been rejected.

There is a thread on IS forums welcoming new inspectors. Sounds like they have hired quite a few of them. Maybe the training process needs to be improved...?

thanks Lisa and Jbarber!! I can certainly live with rejects, no problem! however, rejects for no reason but lack of training or knowledge is in the long run a money looser. funny thing is that Ive already got uploads like this, very similar and in Duplex toning, already on line.

pet_chia · « **Reply #21 on:** November 23, 2010, 09:57 »

Photo looks good. Anyone who has used a camera before should be able to see at a glance that the highlights are not in the places they would be if you had used on-camera flash. I would scout it, and include an on-camera-flash version of the photo (if possible) to show how absurd the rejection was.

I assume that having too many rejections overturned by scout results in some kind of downgrade or dismissal of reviewers? Or at least they should feel chastened ...

Since approximately September at IS they seem to have practically no interest in accepting anything other than plain, ordinary, front-lighted, studio-softbox shots. From non-exclusives anyways. (Based on what I have been submitting, and not based on any kind of analysis of other people's portfolios or on "newest images" searches)

jamirae · « **Reply #22 on:** November 23, 2010, 10:25 »

Quote from: lagereek on November 23, 2010, 09:49

Quote from: lisafx on November 23, 2010, 09:30
I think that photo is outstanding, Christian. Can't see any reason it should have been rejected.

There is a thread on IS forums welcoming new inspectors. Sounds like they have hired quite a few of them. Maybe the training process needs to be improved...?

thanks Lisa and Jbarber!! I can certainly live with rejects, no problem! however, rejects for no reason but lack of training or knowledge is in the long run a money looser. funny thing is that Ive already got uploads like this, very similar and in Duplex toning, already on line.

it's my understanding, at least at iStock, that new inspectors do not work on the queue files until they complete their training. But I do understand that new inspectors still have a lot of experience to build under their belt.

Allsa · « **Reply #23 on:** November 23, 2010, 10:33 »

I think the whole inspector/gatekeeper system is deeply flawed. As it is, we've got the 'pixel police' scrutinizing every pixel and rejecting otherwise strong images for the sake of insignificant flaws that most downloaders wouldn't even see, let alone care about. It doesn't matter how long you've been in microstock or how successful you are, or how much you've learned over the years - everyone, from the greenest newbie to the seasoned professional, all must pass through the same moribund inspection system. Often our best work rejected by tired, overworked inspectors who look at hundreds upon hundreds of images in the course of a week, forcing them to make snap judgments, while marginal content that probably shouldn't have uploaded in the first place gets accepted. This sort of thing happens constantly.

Why not use uploaded limits to filter incoming content instead? As it is, most of the micros, with the exception of iStock, allow everyone to upload huge amounts of imagery, which has necessitated the mass inspection system to begin with. If you are forced to adhere to strict upload limits you will naturally edit your uploads very carefully. Over the course of time, through the process of trail and error, you will learn what does and does not sell within your particular niche. Inspectors would still be needed for quality control, but their role would diminish gradually over time. In this way each individual contributor's learning and experience can be put to work, diversifying the collection and strengthening individual portfolios. Strict upload limits would force us each to be our own inspectors, instead of just uploading everything in the hope of growing a big fat portfolio as quickly as possible. I think this would be more likely to encourage the development of individual style, and help us move away from the endless copying and repetition that has plagued microstock from day one.

lagereek · « **Reply #24 on:** November 23, 2010, 12:12 »

Yes well thats just it!! its flawed in the sense that youve got contributors/acting as reviewers? isnt it? You dont find participants judging a photo-contest, do you.
Reviewing pictures is a human process, sitting for hours on end, then suddenly, up pops a picture in direct competition to your own, only this one is better and will for sure reduce sales, well aprove/reject ?? the human factor! and you cant be blamed for that, its human nature, all of us would probably be the same.

As I said, there are many good reviewers at IS, its just a matter of being lucky, hoping one of them grabs your uploads, thats all.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Here we go again! (Read 12926 times)

lagereek

Noodles

molka

dk

lagereek

helix7

lagereek

ShadySue

vonkara

lagereek

Phadrea

Magnum

lagereek

molka

lagereek

Magnum

lagereek

jbarber873

heywoody

lisafx

lagereek

pet_chia

jamirae

Allsa

lagereek

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors