pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: How did THIS one get through?  (Read 2813 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 21, 2008, 15:31 »
0
I am not a complainer (doesn't every complainer start their post that way?) but, I couldn't help but to really feel as though the review process needs to be a little...no...ALOT more fair at most of the sites. 

Let me start by giving this image as an example:



If you use the zoom function, you can see a few problems with the image:

1.  The lens is dirty.  We all know that no self respecting photographer is going to shoot through a lens that dirty.

2. The removal of the word "Canon" from the lens is horrible.  The clone is obvious and not even or blended.

3. The blown highlights (which is seemingly 'the old standby' when it comes to rejection reasons-  we all know that digital cameras suck for retaining highlights AND that sometimes we sacrifice highlights in certain parts of an image for proper exposure in the main subject...but I digress)

Overall, it is a pretty simplistic image and well photographed subject.  I can see overlooking some of the issues, but when there are that many, on a subject that well photographed, it seems ludicrous to accept another mediocre (at best) image.

Here is the ....'and then...':  The photographer is exclusive to Istock!  Could that be the golden ticket?  Being exclusive means that you can submit so-so images and build your portfolio faster?  I am submitting quality images, 15 at a time per week, and getting silly rejections on one or two of them, so I am not complaining that I never get any images accepted, but I just wonder if those one or two would slide if I was exclusive?


« Reply #1 on: February 21, 2008, 16:00 »
0
I agree: this is not the best camera shot I've seen so far. But it is not the worst either. I like a lot the shallow DOF in this picture which make it different from other similar shots may be... on not. And you are right concerning the highlights and the bad use of the clone tool.

Whatever, I think it is not a very scientific approach to use such discutable examples as a proof of the fact that exclusive contributors are treated differently than other contributors. I'm sure you will find plenty of bad pictures from non exclusive contributors.

And frankly, I don't care that much because for me, if the photo is bad nobody will purchase it.

You should concentrate more on building your portfolio IMHO. But this is just my own personal opinion of course  ;)

I'm a little bit more concerned with possible bias in search engine, but the recent post by Yuri Arcurs seems to prove that it is not the case.


« Last Edit: February 21, 2008, 16:06 by araminta »

« Reply #2 on: February 21, 2008, 16:22 »
0
Whatever, I think it is not a very scientific approach to use such discutable examples as a proof of the fact that exclusive contributors are treated differently than other contributors. I'm sure you will find plenty of bad pictures from non exclusive contributors.

And frankly, I don't care that much because for me, if the photo is bad nobody will purchase it.

You should concentrate more on building your portfolio IMHO. But this is just my own personal opinion of course  ;)


1.  Nice job working in the word 'discutable'. 

2. I didn't mean it to be scientific, but rather a simple example, and hard evidence as to the types of images that slip through the watchful eye of the reviewers, exclusive or not (I did mention it at the end as a PS)

3. I would rather compete against great images than drown in a hoard of sorry images, which is why sales are so slow at places like Canstock.  If a designer has to search through thousands of crap images, they won't ever SEE mine.  On this point I strongly disagree with you.

4. I guess I should stop posting here, too in order to concentrate on building my portfolio.  I am uploading the limit at Istock, so I am doing all I can to build my portfolio. 

« Reply #3 on: February 21, 2008, 16:47 »
0
Not bad, not great. I've submitted dusty images before, but I wouldn't submit a camera lens that was that dusty. But hey, the image got in. I bet it sells too.

Example of my dusty image:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=5338538

« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2008, 17:30 »
0
1.  Nice job working in the word 'discutable'. 

"discutable" is a french word meaning "debatable" in english. Sorry for the mistake and my bad english. And thank you for taking some time to help me improve my skills in english!  ::)


3. I would rather compete against great images than drown in a hoard of sorry images, which is why sales are so slow at places like Canstock.  If a designer has to search through thousands of crap images, they won't ever SEE mine.  On this point I strongly disagree with you.

I'm quite confident that search engines will show good images which sell before crap images which don't sell. I may be wrong however.






« Reply #5 on: February 21, 2008, 17:47 »
0
And frankly, I don't care that much because for me, if the photo is bad nobody will purchase it.

I think that images don't have to be perfect to sell, yet IS seems to be very picky about every minor flaw when it is not from an exclusive photographer.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #6 on: February 21, 2008, 20:06 »
0
I'm still waiting to get some pictures of some "dirt" so I can see if they make it through the process... This is such a  crappy picture of a camera... Everyone here can pick out the model of this camera in an instant, yet they won't let you upload images of cars now...

« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2008, 07:39 »
0

3. I would rather compete against great images than drown in a hoard of sorry images, which is why sales are so slow at places like Canstock.  If a designer has to search through thousands of crap images, they won't ever SEE mine.  On this point I strongly disagree with you.

I'm quite confident that search engines will show good images which sell before crap images which don't sell. I may be wrong however.



I don't know how the search engine determines this, given that a good image isn't determined by the number of sales.  If it was determined by the number of sales, then brand new images would be at a much greater disadvantage. 

Seriously, look at the database of images on Canstock.  They upgraded their server so it would be faster for designers to search for images, yet they keep letting in ameteur-looking, cheezy, mundane, compositionless images that muck up their search engines and it negates the whole process.  Designers spend too much time going through pages of these images to find the images in the same class as the few they show on their homepage. 

I really believe that a database full of great images is good for the whole community.  Have you heard the saying: "It's hard to soar with the eagles when you work with turkeys"? 

I believe this so much that I have gone back through my portfolio and looked at the images that are over a year old and haven't sold once.  I am not saying it is an automatic delete, but I have to look at them critically and ask myself if the quality of the work I was doing a year ago is good enough to represent me today.  In some cases, yes, but as I am only about 3 years into professional photograhy, most cases, no.  When you have been submitting as long as Yuri or Ron Chapple, then the shelf life of your images should be much longer, but as I am just starting out, I expect to put in alot of hard work to get to where they are.


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle