MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Inspector's training manual  (Read 10592 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lucato

  • [<o>] Brasil


« on: March 23, 2010, 17:01 »
0
Hi folks!

Well, we have heard from iStock a lot of instructions and advices through several training manuals, articles, forums and so on. So, I think it is time to give some feedback to iStock and to our inspector team, for the new ones and old ones, and also iStock can hear their contributors/customers side. So I think it is interesting we as iStock contributor/customers share our experiences and knowledges with inspectors and iStock. Who knows one of them can be implemented in the official iStock inspectors training and manual.

I've posted this topic at iStock, but as usual it was moved to suggestion forum and was locked. It wasn't a rant at all, but I'd like to hear from other contributors and iStock would do the same instead of locking a thread. What is the problem by letting contributors continue to discuss this post and put their "instructions" that they think would be useful? It would be moderated. Will it hurt iStock reputation? I don't think so. Btw, the suggestion box forum should definitively excluded or renamed for something like "Land of the lost" or "trash can". :0)

Here are some topics that would be in the training/manual:

1. Always read the description field. Contributor use to use this field to add some extra info for inspectors.

2. When giving a rejection on isolation issue:
a) Mention what areas you saw the problem and send a crop image of the problematic area, so this way the contributors don't have to guess were he/she needs to fix the image;
b) If it is a 2nd rejection on the same issue, mainly in the isolation which has double meaning (rough/feathered) it's obligated to send a cropped image of the problematic area, so this way the contributors don't have to guess were he/she needs to fix the image. Otherwise the contributors will lose their times and inspectors times again. They will try to fix something that they don't have idea what inspector saw, will submit again, and inspectors will lose time checking a problematic image again.

3. Before rejecting an image due "Unnecessary addition of negative/blank space", make sure of:
a) Make sure if the content isn't using the whole/main area of the vertical/horizontal area of the native resolution. Several times the images can use the most area of the vertical or horizantal positon, leave a copy space, but still is in the native camera resolution without any white/whatever color addiction;
b) The width/hight pixels sizes really doesn't belong to the default equipments in the marketing, so which makes the image a native resolution (Check iStock table - It should have one).

4) Before rejecting the images due isolation issues, make sure the isolation wasn't made with lights. All isolations doesn't need to be necessary digitally or as a "cut". They can be achieved by lights, therefore a single image can have soft areas and/or hard ones and/or out of focus in some areas and all this are original from the taken image.

5) Coming soon from some iStock contributor or from myself...

Now iStock contributors, post you topic that you think would be in the inspector's training/manual:

I hope there is no padlock or a suggestion box at MicrostockGroup.com. ;0)


« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2010, 19:25 »
0
It's always great to brainstorm new ideas. When it comes to the review process everything has to be presented to the agency and not the inspectors. Regardless of which agency we are talking about the reviewers follow the guidelines and memo updates that are decided on by the agency. You use your judgement within a pre-defined set of rules. So if an inspector reads an awesome idea of how things should be done they cannot take it on their own to do it .. unless they want to get fired in a hurry. Just like any job in the world ... you do what the boss tells you to do not what you think is right. The company policy must first be officially updated with the new idea. With that said, I wouldn't count on accomplishing anything here because the odds of IS watching this forum over their own for ideas is pretty slim. If they were interested in discussing new ideas they would promote it on their forums.

1. This is standard practice for any agency. The title, description, category and keyword fields are always suppose to be checked.

2.a. Implement this idea and I'm guessing pending times will jump to 6 months within 24 hours. Plus you can forget your commission because company profits are going to be redirected to the admins otherwise they would all quit and the company would shutdown.

2.b. Same problem as above. Photographers have no clue to the amount of photos that are submitted everyday that do not come even close to being acceptable. People with no training whatsoever submitting shots from $50 point n shoots .. people who think you can take a 1MP shot with their camera phone in extreme low-light resize it to 4MP then submit it .. the point is an inspectors job is in quality control .. not educational training.

3. If you are referring to taking an isolated subject and increasing the canvas size to create copyspace ... why would you do that? The buyer is going to be able to do that themself to the exact ratio that they require in a matter of seconds. All this is doing is creating a thumbnail that wont get a buyers attention. Plus you are increasing inspection times with no benefit to the community.

4. I'd need to see an example of what you are talking about exactly. However, in any case a inspector should not ever have to consider if an isolation was accomplished in photoshop or with lighting .. if the subject is really an isolation it's either done right or it's not .. there is no grey area .. well there is but it's called a reject.  ;D

If you want to try to make serious changes you are going to have to represent them to the agencies in the way they want it represented (if they want it represented at all). You will also need to come up with extremely well thought out ideas that improve the company, decrease inspection time (not increase it), etc. Efficiency and profitability is what will get their attention. They are in the business to sell quality images to buyers ... not train people how to take quality photos.

Another thing people do not consider is the design of the administration features of an agency. They are all custom and they are all different. A simple idea might be a quick implementation for one agencies structure and be a massive expense and nightmare for another.

It seems to be popular lately to say that there are also inspectors rejecting quality images to eliminate competition. I'm sorry but this is just a bit stupid. Let's say you own an agency .. an admin rejects a bunch of awesome images because they honestly believe that those images (out of millions) will somehow give them a better chance of selling their own images. What are you going to do? You're going to fire them immediately .. I would personally fire them and close their contributor account just because they tried screwing with my business. There is no competition elimination conspiracy going on .. sorry people.

I'm sure that people do get rejects that should have been passed. Especially if a growing company is in the process of training new inspectors to help knock down the pending times that contributors are complaining about. It's going to happen from time to time .. just a fact of doing business.

... and I doubt you have to worry about Leaf locking the thread .. it's pretty open here  ;D .. I will say that there are better things to discuss though. A more productive method to solving the problems you stated would be for people to place more effort into studying photography and less effort into asking the agencies to spend more time teaching them how to use their cameras.

« Reply #2 on: March 23, 2010, 20:19 »
0
I don't think we need to be defending IS (since they won't respond themselves) and rationalizing why everything has to be just the way it is now, and can't ever change.  Can't we take the contributors point of view instead of the agencies?  I'm sure there are reason why they can only pay me 23 cents for my latest download, too, but I don't necessarily accept those reasons.

Just about all of lucato's suggestions can and perhaps should be implemented by IS with the added condition that they'll be applied IF and ONLY IF the image in question has value and is worth saving. For obvious junk from clueless newbies, there's no need to send a clip of the problem area.  For an isolated shot with clear value, in which the reviewer feels there's a small area that needs retouching - please tell me why IS can  NOT be bothered to attach a clip.  I know they have the means to do it, and they must be at least dimly aware by now of all the frustration being caused by over-the-top "too feathered or too rough" rejections.

« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2010, 20:24 »
0
Like I said in the forum, this does come across as an inspection rant.  Like I put something in the field they didn't notice, so I'm going to make a point to say they should read it.  They do read it.  They're humans, so sometimes it gets missed.

Same for the rest, thumbs are not a requirement - this isn't photography school, but sometimes the occasion calls for it.  As long as the white space isn't overdone, native resolution images are fine.  You can't put 50% content into an image, and expect to get away with 50% white, native or not.  I don't know what #4 means, so I can't comment on that.

Trying to tell them how to do their job when the process works 99% of the time just won't fly.

« Reply #4 on: March 23, 2010, 21:38 »
0
I don't think we need to be defending IS (since they won't respond themselves) and rationalizing why everything has to be just the way it is now, and can't ever change.  Can't we take the contributors point of view instead of the agencies?  I'm sure there are reason why they can only pay me 23 cents for my latest download, too, but I don't necessarily accept those reasons.

Just about all of lucato's suggestions can and perhaps should be implemented by IS with the added condition that they'll be applied IF and ONLY IF the image in question has value and is worth saving. For obvious junk from clueless newbies, there's no need to send a clip of the problem area.  For an isolated shot with clear value, in which the reviewer feels there's a small area that needs retouching - please tell me why IS can  NOT be bothered to attach a clip.  I know they have the means to do it, and they must be at least dimly aware by now of all the frustration being caused by over-the-top "too feathered or too rough" rejections.

Trust me I wasn't defending IS .. I can't stand a lot of things they do. I was speaking of the review process for the entire industry in general. IMO, I would rather see IS stop taking the time to mess with reasons for rejections completely .. Maybe then you wouldn't have to wait a week just to get a handful of images reviewed.

« Reply #5 on: March 23, 2010, 22:16 »
0
Some people say the microstocks can't do a better job of reviewing, or of giving meaningful feedback, because of the vast number of junk images they're taking in.  Well didn't they approve those submitters in the first place? And if they're submitting huge numbers of images with no stock value, or of poor quality, why not redline them, stop reviewing them and spend time doing a better job on images that might sell?

Oh wait, I just noticed that DT is offering an IPod to the person who submits the 9 millionth image... guess we can't look for sanity to prevail just yet...

« Reply #6 on: March 23, 2010, 23:05 »
0
IMO, I would rather see IS stop taking the time to mess with reasons for rejections completely .. Maybe then you wouldn't have to wait a week just to get a handful of images reviewed.

Hop in your time machine and head back to SS in 2005 sometime. They had no rejection reasons and contributors were asking for them to include them. There was some back and forth in the forums - some quite snotty from some then-admins suggesting that they weren't running a photo school

I was one of those arguing that it was in their best interests as well as ours to distinguish between a subject they didn't want any more of (at the beginning they were trying to discourage landscapes, beaches, etc.) so we wouldn't keep submitting them and something that had a copyrighted element, imperfect isolation or some other technical flaw.

I still think that a collection of one sentence rejection reasons (I'd ditch the 5 page essay that iStock now includes with each) helps both the agency and the contributors keep submissions on track.

lucato

  • [<o>] Brasil


« Reply #7 on: March 24, 2010, 05:10 »
0
It's always great to brainstorm new ideas. When it comes to the review process everything has to be presented to the agency and not the inspectors. Regardless of which agency we are talking about the reviewers follow the guidelines and memo updates that are decided on by the agency. You use your judgement within a pre-defined set of rules. So if an inspector reads an awesome idea of how things should be done they cannot take it on their own to do it .. unless they want to get fired in a hurry. Just like any job in the world ... you do what the boss tells you to do not what you think is right. The company policy must first be officially updated with the new idea.
- Hi Randy, I agree in part with you here and certainly inspectors have to follow rules as employees, but  some things posted here can be taken by their own without braking policies, actually some of the actions are the actual policy that has been missed. So, some are not new ideas.

Quote
With that said, I wouldn't count on accomplishing anything here because the odds of IS watching this forum over their own for ideas is pretty slim. If they were interested in discussing new ideas they would promote it on their forums.
- I doesn't mean that isn't read by them and also it isn't only for IS. It's also for the community.

Quote
1. This is standard practice for any agency. The title, description, category and keyword fields are always suppose to be checked.
- Yup, "supposed". It has been missed several times. I know they're humans, so sometimes it gets missed. So, if it is happening a lot, why iStock don't create an exclusive input field to communicate with inspectors? It isn't hard to be implemented.

Quote
2.a. Implement this idea and I'm guessing pending times will jump to 6 months within 24 hours. Plus you can forget your commission because company profits are going to be redirected to the admins otherwise they would all quit and the company would shutdown.
- Nope, IMHO if this action was taken it would decrease the pending times e mainly the queue line! It will avoid contributors losing their times by fixing images that they would not try to fix again if had a better information, so this way wouldn't upload it again or if uploaded inspectors wouldn't lose their times again by checking the same image that the contributors tried to fix something that they don't have idea what inspector saw!

Quote
2.b. Same problem as above. Photographers have no clue to the amount of photos that are submitted everyday that do not come even close to being acceptable. People with no training whatsoever submitting shots from $50 point n shoots .. people who think you can take a 1MP shot with their camera phone in extreme low-light resize it to 4MP then submit it .. the point is an inspectors job is in quality control .. not educational training.
- I agree with you that there are this group of "over resize" people, but as posted in part by stockastic, there's no need to send a clip of the problem area or post a better info if the image falls in this case or they see the image has a poor isolation. I'm talking about inspectors sharpen eyes, that rejects images that won't harm any off-seft/print or screen use. So, for an isolated shot with clear value, in which the inspectors feels there's a small area that needs retouching - please tell me why IS can  NOT be bothered to attach a clip and inspector can't tell what they SAW once they are aware of all issues caused by over-the-top "too feathered or too rough" rejections. As said before IMHO if this action was taken it would DECREASE the pending times e mainly the DECREASE the queue line once It will avoid inspectors to check images again that the contributors tried to fix something that they din't have idea what inspector saw and will reject again because fixing the wrong area, and the contributor will try to fix again in a guessing because he/she got the SECOND rejection on the same subject and allow to submit again with no cropped area and with no comments from inspector of what areas inspector saw wrong: "This one next to X is rough, that one aroung Y is soft!". Regarding not educational training, it isn't educational training. It was a rejection from inspector and won't teach how to fix, will just point what areas they saw a problem, so it isn't any educational training at all.[/quote]


Quote
3. If you are referring to taking an isolated subject and increasing the canvas size to create copyspace ... why would you do that? The buyer is going to be able to do that themself to the exact ratio that they require in a matter of seconds. All this is doing is creating a thumbnail that wont get a buyers attention. Plus you are increasing inspection times with no benefit to the community.
- Nope, read the item again. It's not about increasing the canvas size. It's about an original image with original resolution size has been rejected due not native resolution/white increased.

Quote
4. I'd need to see an example of what you are talking about exactly. However, in any case a inspector should not ever have to consider if an isolation was accomplished in photoshop or with lighting .. if the subject is really an isolation it's either done right or it's not .. there is no grey area .. well there is but it's called a reject.  ;D
- I'm sorry, but I don't agree. If you think this way, I would say "Photographers should not ever have to consider to make an isolation with Photoshop or very 'cut' ", they are photographers, not designers, or image treaters. ;0)

Quote
If you want to try to make serious changes you are going to have to represent them to the agencies in the way they want it represented (if they want it represented at all). You will also need to come up with extremely well thought out ideas that improve the company, decrease inspection time (not increase it), etc. Efficiency and profitability is what will get their attention. They are in the business to sell quality images to buyers ... not train people how to take quality photos.
Well, as I said before, it is your point of view that it wouldn't decrease time and all is about training and it isn't the case, but I respect it, each one has your opinion and point of view and I appreciate your reply.

Quote
Another thing people do not consider is the design of the administration features of an agency. They are all custom and they are all different. A simple idea might be a quick implementation for one agencies structure and be a massive expense and nightmare for another.
- What agency do you run? :0) Well, until now in the first post, none of the items request any new implementation. All is already in their system. They are only action behaviors. :0)

Quote
It seems to be popular lately to say that there are also inspectors rejecting quality images to eliminate competition. I'm sorry but this is just a bit stupid. Let's say you own an agency .. an admin rejects a bunch of awesome images because they honestly believe that those images (out of millions) will somehow give them a better chance of selling their own images. What are you going to do? You're going to fire them immediately .. I would personally fire them and close their contributor account just because they tried screwing with my business. There is no competition elimination conspiracy going on .. sorry people.
- I have never heard about it. IMHO it doesn't make sense, as you said, "is just a bit stupid".

Quote
I'm sure that people do get rejects that should have been passed. Especially if a growing company is in the process of training new inspectors to help knock down the pending times that contributors are complaining about. It's going to happen from time to time .. just a fact of doing business.
- I agree, but when you see that the same problem persists frequently for thousand of members and was already informed by the community, something may be wrong and something need to be done.

Quote
... and I doubt you have to worry about Leaf locking the thread .. it's pretty open here  ;D ..
- Good to know. ;0)

Quote
I will say that there are better things to discuss though.
- I'll repeat again, it is your point of view, maybe it isn't relevant for you, but it is for me. Once you always mention that agencies are business and so on, I'm also as contributor and it affects my daily work. Not all contributors are basic, junk image senders or hobbyists. ;0)

Quote
A more productive method to solving the problems you stated would be for people to place more effort into studying photography and less effort into asking the agencies to spend more time teaching them how to use their cameras.
- I agree that a lot of member would study a little more, but again, at any moment I've mentioned to teach how to use their cameras and so on. As posted on the very beginning of the 1st post, there are already hundred of articles and training manuals. ;0)

Thanks for participating and have a nice day.

« Reply #8 on: March 24, 2010, 09:28 »
0
I've worked behind the scenes for multiple agencies both inspecting and consulting for the last 6 years. I just can't agree with adding additional workload onto the admins .. like pointing out exactly what they need to fix and sending them cropped examples .. it's simply not a realistic business model.

Inspectors are paid to determine what is accepted or rejected into the library and that is it .. if they take it on their own to give out custom hand typed rejections to everyone they do it on their own time and lose money .. they lose a lot of money.

By adding onto the admins workload you slow down productivity. So I can see one possibility. Contributors be given option to opt in/out of an extended review process. In other words .. if you need training because you don't understand what an image is being rejected for then you pay for it. Every image that is sent back with a custom explanation deducts a fee from your account. This will still slow down productivity so the agency is going to need to be compensated. It will also effect the admins hourly rate so they too will need to be compensated. To maintain a productive business model and balance out employee wages on an hourly rate I would ballpark this as something in the lines of a $0.40 - $0.60 per image fee divided equally between agency/admin.

However, would it be worth implementing into a business model? It's similar to the keywording option on DT and I don't know anything about that .. how much it costs .. stats on it's usage .. etc.  If anyone would be able to run the numbers on an idea like this it would be them.

The simple solution. People need to study photography more before diving into microstock and then thinking they need to be given a detailed report when they don't get their images approved. Or at least they need to realize that it is up to themselves to learn what it takes to shoot on a commercial level ... I suppose this is the result from years of the agencies establishing a reputation of a being considered a community rather than just a company.

« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2010, 09:51 »
0
Maybe some of you have (like me) worked in manufacturing, testing and quality control.

The way you achieve quality is by telling your suppliers exactly what you want.  If they deliver parts that don't pass your tests, you communicate the problems to them specifically and precisely, answering any questions they have.  As the suppliers adapt and get better at meeting your standards, your need for inspection and testing is reduced.  Eventually, you only need to inspect a statistically valid sample of that supplier's output - not 100% - as long as he stays on track.  You save time and money.

The way you achieve failure is by telling your suppliers "sorry, guess again".

If you have lots of vendors all offering you the same parts, and they have no place else to sell them, and you don't mind inspecting everything, forever, then I guess you don't need to bother explaining the failures, but it's a very inefficient way to do things, for both you and the suppliers.  
« Last Edit: March 24, 2010, 10:07 by stockastic »

« Reply #10 on: March 24, 2010, 11:44 »
0
Maybe some of you have (like me) worked in manufacturing, testing and quality control.

The way you achieve quality is by telling your suppliers exactly what you want.  If they deliver parts that don't pass your tests, you communicate the problems to them specifically and precisely, answering any questions they have.  As the suppliers adapt and get better at meeting your standards, your need for inspection and testing is reduced.  Eventually, you only need to inspect a statistically valid sample of that supplier's output - not 100% - as long as he stays on track.  You save time and money.

The way you achieve failure is by telling your suppliers "sorry, guess again".

If you have lots of vendors all offering you the same parts, and they have no place else to sell them, and you don't mind inspecting everything, forever, then I guess you don't need to bother explaining the failures, but it's a very inefficient way to do things, for both you and the suppliers.  

You communicate to a point ... and only with suppliers who know what they are doing in the first place and are operating on a 100% professional basis. And even then you don't let them continue supplying you with raw materials that do not meet quality standards. You give them a few chances and if they don't step up to plate you find another supplier .. the supplier who couldn't meet inspection just doesn't get to supply anything at all.

Manufacturers also are not striking up supply contracts with 100,000 people who don't really know much about what they are doing. It would be like me trying to go and put a low-end entry level metal workshop in my garage (with only an interest and no training in the field) then call up General Motors and get annoyed when they won't babysit me through learning how to use it so that I can supply them with frames for their line of 2010 corvettes.

So if we want to use a manufacturing business model for microstock we are looking at something a lot stricter .. basically no more newbies .. only exceptional hobbyists, semi-pro and professional career photographers are allowed. Photographers are pre-screened for a 100% acceptance ratio before being able to submit and then once accepted as a supplier they must maintain a 90-95% acceptance ratio .. they fall below that and they are no longer a supplier. If the agency ran on a model like this then yes I can see them having closer contact with suppliers on quality control specs because the expense would be justified ... you cannot justify that expense with the guy down the street playing around in his garage when he has a little free time to kill.

« Reply #11 on: March 24, 2010, 12:14 »
0
This discussion is pointless. You cannot argue with facts:
1. Agencies already got enough images so they do not really need new supply
2. There are more suppliers everyday so they also do not care if you stay there or not there are hundreds who can take your place if you quit
3. It's no longer true that you can grow from nothing to something and earn money at they same time. Now you have to start from something and keep growing but there is no guarantee that you actually earn enough to justify time spent.
4. Better make sure you got some other source of income to pay your bills. For pros it would be place to sell their leftovers. Amateurs will have to change to pros or die here. Anyway times where you can have full time income from this are over.
5. If it's not your major source of income just face the facts, relax cause rejections across the board will rise. You need to improve your skills rather than spent time ranting :-)

« Reply #12 on: March 24, 2010, 12:42 »
0
This discussion is pointless. You cannot argue with facts:
1. Agencies already got enough images so they do not really need new supply
2. There are more suppliers everyday so they also do not care if you stay there or not there are hundreds who can take your place if you quit
3. It's no longer true that you can grow from nothing to something and earn money at they same time. Now you have to start from something and keep growing but there is no guarantee that you actually earn enough to justify time spent.
4. Better make sure you got some other source of income to pay your bills. For pros it would be place to sell their leftovers. Amateurs will have to change to pros or die here. Anyway times where you can have full time income from this are over.
5. If it's not your major source of income just face the facts, relax cause rejections across the board will rise. You need to improve your skills rather than spent time ranting :-)


That's all true of course, but it doesn't mean things can't change.  Ok maybe the big 4 can no longer change, but new sites could do things better, and I expect they will in time.

Wait - did I just say something optimisitic? Someone please tell my wife... :)

« Reply #13 on: March 24, 2010, 12:49 »
0
This discussion is pointless. You cannot argue with facts:
1. Agencies already got enough images so they do not really need new supply
2. There are more suppliers everyday so they also do not care if you stay there or not there are hundreds who can take your place if you quit
3. It's no longer true that you can grow from nothing to something and earn money at they same time. Now you have to start from something and keep growing but there is no guarantee that you actually earn enough to justify time spent.
4. Better make sure you got some other source of income to pay your bills. For pros it would be place to sell their leftovers. Amateurs will have to change to pros or die here. Anyway times where you can have full time income from this are over.
5. If it's not your major source of income just face the facts, relax cause rejections across the board will rise. You need to improve your skills rather than spent time ranting :-)


That's all true of course, but it doesn't mean things can't change.  Ok maybe the big 4 can no longer change, but new sites could do things better, and I expect they will in time.

Wait - did I just say something optimisitic? Someone please tell my wife... :)

oh come on Stockastic, my old friend, don't make me laugh.
can you believe what you say yourself? lol..
new sites could do things better, and I expect they will in time.

like how?
- pay you to upload xxx images
-promise bigger commissions
-approve everything you send
-put garbage images (over exposed, flare,etc) on front page
but reject much better images saying "lighting restricts stock sale potential"
-
and oh, before my oldsenile  pensioner's mind forgets,
shut down the site after two , three years, and then say "not to worry, we 're starting a new site"
etc etc etc..

you make me laugh, friend !  ;D ;D ;D

« Reply #14 on: March 24, 2010, 13:46 »
0
One more thing. Learn to shoot video. Is like 2005 for footage on microstock. Everything goes and they pay a lot just to attract as much contributors as possible :-)

« Reply #15 on: March 25, 2010, 15:30 »
0
slightly OT.

you know, I find it interesting to note that IS, as inflexible and strict as many people like to make known, is the only site that has an appeal mechanism (Scout).
all the other "friendlier" sites have a hands-off rejections approach , with Support always saying they really don't get involved with questioning reviewers .

also, as already stated , IS is also the only one who allows opt out choice on subscription.

seems like IS is the most democratic. ,maybe it's because it's Canadian ??? 
« Last Edit: March 25, 2010, 15:33 by PERSEUS »

« Reply #16 on: March 25, 2010, 15:52 »
0
But sometimes I 'appeal' to Scout and never even get a reply. 

« Reply #17 on: March 25, 2010, 16:52 »
0
This discussion is pointless. You cannot argue with facts:
1. Agencies already got enough images so they do not really need new supply
Well said, considering some subjects, BUT apart from the popular and obvious, there are a lot of uncovered themes. A lot.
...
5. You need to improve your skills rather than spent time ranting :-)
Yes.
As said, microstock is not a school so don't expect detailed rejections.
Microstock is a school, please learn from the bunch of rejections, sacrifice your images to learn, what an agency likes/dislikes. Anyway, ONE agency rejects the image, not all of them. OK, if all of them, that image really sucks.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #18 on: March 27, 2010, 08:28 »
0
But sometimes I 'appeal' to Scout and never even get a reply. 
Oh, I always get a reply, sometimes a month later, sometimes ten weeks later ...
But I doubt if I've used Scout even ten times, though I've got an image with them at the moment.

« Reply #19 on: March 27, 2010, 08:37 »
0
Oh, I always get a reply, sometimes a month later, sometimes ten weeks later ...
That must feel good  ;)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #20 on: March 27, 2010, 08:53 »
0
Oh, I always get a reply, sometimes a month later, sometimes ten weeks later ...
That must feel good  ;)
Ha! The one I have with them at the moment is an Easter pic which was rejected for IP, though others of the same subject were accepted. However, those I had accepted have had almost no interest, and neither have almost all of the most recent 500 photos with the keywords Easter chocolate, which must be a poly-saturated market, or else Easter has been cancelled this year.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
3535 Views
Last post February 26, 2009, 02:49
by greener
8 Replies
5372 Views
Last post October 15, 2009, 16:46
by eppic
12 Replies
2835 Views
Last post March 27, 2013, 05:22
by palirao
0 Replies
1396 Views
Last post December 12, 2014, 05:48
by Sean Locke Photography
4 Replies
5630 Views
Last post October 26, 2017, 14:35
by dacascas

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle