MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Rejections increasing?  (Read 17112 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: December 18, 2008, 06:16 »
0
I had the same experience with rejections reasons described in detail and the problematic part of image shown to me. it certainly helps a lot!

The Scout system seems to work as well, as I had two of my rejections reversed recently after they were rejected for lack of property releases. After my explanation, both rejections were reversed. The system is a bit slow as it took a couple of weeks, but it worked.

It has been mentioned before that the scout system isn't that good because when an image is finally accepted, it ends up way down the best match search and is unlikely to sell.  I don't bother any more.

me too, better to resubmit and try again then wait for weeks to months to have to put on and then never do anything because now rated bottom of best match


AVAVA

« Reply #26 on: December 18, 2008, 13:31 »
0
We just had 13 of 15 rejected by Is with our last upload. All 15 passed all our other sites.

AVAVA

« Reply #27 on: December 18, 2008, 16:49 »
0
We just had 13 of 15 rejected by Is with our last upload. All 15 passed all our other sites.

AVAVA

It can be maddening when this happens - just don't let it get to you!

AVAVA

« Reply #28 on: December 18, 2008, 17:26 »
0
Thanks Sharply,

I realize we are all playing on the same field. It doesn't get me down much except trying to please my agencies needs and not being able to do so. The money is not the concern it is the lack of consistency that this company provides. Once again thanks for the support.

Best,
AVAVA

« Reply #29 on: December 18, 2008, 17:46 »
0
We just had 13 of 15 rejected by Is with our last upload. All 15 passed all our other sites.

AVAVA

AVAVA,

I look at your work and I just don't get this. Is there some wildly jealous reviewer that can't stand seeing such good photos? What are you getting rejected for. Artifacts on shoelaces?

Peter

AVAVA

« Reply #30 on: December 18, 2008, 18:11 »
0
Hi Zues,
 We get rejected for every possible option. The first thing people will ask on this MSG site is will you please show us your images so we can make our own evealuation here on MSG, No offense to all you concerned but I have been converting files since 95' for some of the biggest fortune 500 companies in the world as well as my staff for Getty images for ten years with a 97% acceptance rate and over 14,000 accepted images online under my name. I believe Istock is looking at these images way beyond 100% until they find a group of pixels with the same density and they are referring to that as an artifact. The reason all our images pass Gety QC is because they have highly trained individuals that understand the make up of digital files.
 I submit an image at Istock that is accepted and then the very next image in the series processed and lit the exact same way with the same model in the same position ( just the woman turning to look at the camera ) and it gets rejected, same series. I get rejected for upsampling from a 22 mega pixel camera. I have the classic focus is not where we feel it is appropriate. The eye of the subject is tack sharp and that is the focal point of the shot.
 Like I have said our rejection rate has fallen almost 10% since we started uploading a couple of months ago and all the work was processed the same in the same controlled studio lighting. We have been trying to adjust our post production workflow through ideas people have shared and our rejections keep falling ( try downsizing just a bit before uploading, nope it doesn't work for us ). It is my choice to keep uploading and I am going to keep doing so but it doesn't mean I am not going to answer questions directly and bring our issues to the to the attention of others. No matter what Istock crowny gets on here and tells me I am wrong. Thanks for your support Zeus. I can share something that was told to us Macro producers at a big Getty meeting this last fall at photo Expo that explains it all but I would rather do it through a PM as I don't want to upset the king or Queen for that Matter.

 Best,
AVAVA

« Last Edit: December 18, 2008, 18:14 by AVAVA »

« Reply #31 on: December 18, 2008, 19:44 »
0
... it is the lack of consistency that this company provides. Once again thanks for the support.

Best,
AVAVA

I agree 100% - a lot of the rejections I experience at IS are nonsensical. They'll accept image A and B from the same series, but reject C and D. They'll accept isolation A and background B, but will reject image C which is comprised solely of isolation A on background B. Like I said before, it can be maddening ...

AVAVA

« Reply #32 on: December 18, 2008, 23:09 »
0
Hard to deal with somedays huh Sharply,

 I just tell myself "it's their field and If I don't want to play I can take my ball and go home ". I believe it will all change in the near future. So my ball is staying on the field. They can't run a successful business with 20 people making such a huge amount of their sales. But we are already starting to see that. I have been watching the Istock chart for over a month now and I can tell you the big players have seen some drops while some of the smaller Exclusives are starting to see a rise. Soon will be the changing of the guard to some degree. Hang in there.

Best,
AVAVA

« Reply #33 on: December 18, 2008, 23:40 »
0
It has been mentioned before that the scout system isn't that good because when an image is finally accepted, it ends up way down the best match search and is unlikely to sell.  I don't bother any more.
me too, better to resubmit and try again then wait for weeks to months to have to put on and then never do anything because now rated bottom of best match

I just did a search on my image that got accepted. The image was the first in the Newest First search, and it was on the 2nd page out of 8 pages of results for a best match search. This seems pretty good to me. I am not sure where new images are usually supposed to come in best match searches.

AVAVA

« Reply #34 on: December 19, 2008, 00:14 »
0
 We just stopped resubmitting rejects to Istock if they don't take it the first time then we move onto new work and stick it into the Istock reject folder ( the only reject folder we have ). We have wasted to much time in the past trying to figure out their process and fix their rejects. Like I said before I have enough images right now to keep me uploading for 6 years at Istock with their limits they have set at this time. I will deal with all the rejects the last three years. Within three years from now a lot will take place, actually much sooner than that.

Best,
J


« Reply #35 on: December 19, 2008, 00:21 »
0
I can share something that was told to us Macro producers at a big Getty meeting this last fall at photo Expo that explains it all but I would rather do it through a PM as I don't want to upset the king or Queen for that Matter.

Within three years from now a lot will take place, actually much sooner than that.

Best,
J

Please share Jonathan ... you have my curiosity totally spiked ... regarding rejections of your work by IS - it's only their loss and the other sites' gain ... kind of idiotic on Istocks's part though IMHO ...

« Reply #36 on: December 19, 2008, 00:39 »
0
We just stopped resubmitting rejects to Istock if they don't take it the first time then we move onto new work and stick it into the Istock reject folder ( the only reject folder we have ). We have wasted to much time in the past trying to figure out their process and fix their rejects. Like I said before I have enough images right now to keep me uploading for 6 years at Istock with their limits they have set at this time. I will deal with all the rejects the last three years. Within three years from now a lot will take place, actually much sooner than that.

Best,
J



J,

Don't fix anything, just group similar rejections together and pass them on to Scout to take a whack at them. I get a really good acceptance rate this way from rejected files. I wouldn't fix them either especially when there ain''t nothin' to fix.

P.

AVAVA

« Reply #37 on: December 19, 2008, 00:42 »
0
THanks a lot for the advice Zeus. I will see if it is cost efficient to spend the time.

Best,
J

AVAVA

« Reply #38 on: December 19, 2008, 00:48 »
0
Hoi Ha,

 Sent you a PM.

Best,
AVAVA

lagereek

« Reply #39 on: December 19, 2008, 03:39 »
0
Look at it like this.

At the moment theyre trying to get rid of non-exclusives, they really dont want our shots, even if theyre unique.
So what better way to stop us, then at the very entrance. i.e. instead of finding a reason to approve, look for a reason to reject, any reason.
Looking at some of the banal rubbish submitted by exclusives that is being approved? well no wonder theyve got problems.

BTW: Ive got an 85% approval rate there, so this is no sour grapes, its fact.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2008, 03:50 by lagereek »

« Reply #40 on: December 19, 2008, 06:46 »
0
I can share something that was told to us Macro producers at a big Getty meeting this last fall at photo Expo that explains it all but I would rather do it through a PM as I don't want to upset the king or Queen for that Matter.

 Best,
AVAVA

Oh, no, please do share this secret here with everyone.   I'm sure we'd all like to know without taking up your time with numerous PMs.

shank_ali

« Reply #41 on: December 19, 2008, 11:08 »
0
I do read some tripe about istockphoto on this forum.Banal rubbish by exclusives getting accepted as opposed to class imagery being rejected from non-exclusives being the latest.
EVERY CONTRIBUTOR supplying files to istockphoto will be dealing with inspection inconsistencies as it's a human process.
So your a none exclusive contributor and you get 13 out 15 rejected on istock.You upload to another four sites and all are accepted. Now you have 62 images being viewed by five different groups of buyers....
I have 13 out 15 rejected by istock and i have 2 images being viewed by one group of buyers...
I am happy so why can't you be and stop complaining........

« Reply #42 on: December 19, 2008, 11:11 »
0
I didn't notice increasing in rejections on IS. I can't say I submit too much lately, but rejections seem as usual to me...

AVAVA

« Reply #43 on: December 19, 2008, 13:16 »
0
I don't think you would beleive it anyway Sean,

 There were over 50 people in the meeting in N.Y. if they had wanted you there you would have been invited. No, I only share my knowledge with others that share with others. You will have to find your answers somewhere else. Isn't it you that made it clear to me to not share with the people on this site that I was only making it worse for you and other successful shooters and you didn't appreciate it.
 If I want to share my stuff I am allowed and your efforts to stop me are futile ( a little Star Trek thrown in ). I am sure your sales although slipping will find there way back to the top. If you want me to share info with you that would help you plan your future than try being nice. I sent you a PM to try and clear the air and make friends and you were not interested.
 Why do you keep telling me to share this advice with everyone then turn around and send me PM's telling me I am ignorant in my sharing of this kind of information, you are very confusing at times. Last time you blamed me for getting a Buzz out of sharing, like that is a bad thing. Try it sometime I think most people will say they get a buzz out of helping others that is the payback. You made it sound lie the buzz is a selfish thing. It's all good SJ you just don't get it. Lots to go around for everyone here.

Love ya,
Jonathan

« Reply #44 on: December 19, 2008, 13:53 »
0
Shank Ali,
'Banal rubbish' - you say.
Non-exclusives complaining about rejections.
Last time I uploaded to Istock (more than 2 months ago) they rejected one of my files with the following reason :
'Clipping, Path' - keywords, not relevant to an image with a clipping path included!
Please fix and resubmit.
I have never done so. Not once.
Instead I stopped uploading.
Now you tell me, can an exclusive get a rejection based on such a motive?

3 days ago IStock waiting list was 20.100 files.
Same day on DT - waiting list over 64.000
Last week on SS - number of new files - 60.000
Numbers, numbers, they say it all.
From a buyer's point of view, IStock simply doesn't look good.

AVAVA

« Reply #45 on: December 19, 2008, 14:14 »
0
Hi Shank_Ali,

 I am only replying to what was asked of me by Zeus, isn't this his site. If a person on this site asks me a question I am going to answer to the best of my knowledge. If you read my posts and disagree that is your prerogative but to tell me to quit complaining is shortsighted and rather disrespectful considering I was answering a question from another poster. It is through open communication that some of these problems can be solved. Through our dealings I have always tried to show you respect. When you wanted the video of Hitler taken down I obliged immediately with concern that I might have offended you. Maybe you could just try a little harder to treat people here with a bit more respect. We are all on the same team and it is a very small playing field.

Regards,
AVAVA
« Last Edit: December 19, 2008, 14:15 by AVAVA »

« Reply #46 on: December 19, 2008, 14:47 »
0
A bit of crystal ball gazing here - I wonder if the istock premium collection is about to become Gettys new dollar bin.

bittersweet

« Reply #47 on: December 19, 2008, 15:44 »
0
Last time I uploaded to Istock (more than 2 months ago) they rejected one of my files with the following reason :
'Clipping, Path' - keywords, not relevant to an image with a clipping path included!

With all due respect, I'd like to point out the comma in your entry here, designating that these are two separate words, which you entered in as two separate keywords. They did not say that the key phrase "clipping path" was not relevant; they said that the words "clipping" [which maps in the CV to "cutting (moving activity)"] and "path" [which includes three choices in the CV, only one of which remotely relates to a clipping path] were not valid. The appropriate entry on your part should have been the recognized key phrase "clipping path" which maps to the correct meaning you were going for.

I'm not questioning whether you have all kinds of other valid problems, only offering a suggestion that might explain this particular situation.

« Reply #48 on: December 19, 2008, 16:39 »
0
I was actually quite surprised the last batch of stuff that I put through IS; 22 for 24 when all was said and done.... much better than the 50-65% that's been going as of late.  The part that was surprising me the most was the 3 to 4 day review times as opposed to the typical 10 day review times that have been experienced lately.

My theory was they really liked 'em :)

bittersweet

« Reply #49 on: December 19, 2008, 16:42 »
0
A bit of crystal ball gazing here - I wonder if the istock premium collection is about to become Gettys new dollar bin.

That would be fun. I can see the notice now:

Dear sjlocke,
We are pleased inform you that your stellar image with its far superior implementation and obviously off-the-hook production costs has been excepted into the elite iStockphoto Premiere Collection. It will be assigned a licensing fee worthy of its position in this special collection.

You should be proud to have your image right alongside the likes of many of our most experienced Getty photographers. Their special assortment of images, featuring such valuable content as cellphone bricks and classic 80s hairstyles, will certainly complement your work.

Thank you again for all that you are to us.

Mmmmmwah!!
istockphoto


 :D



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
45 Replies
18232 Views
Last post August 27, 2010, 05:44
by mtkang
4 Replies
2864 Views
Last post January 16, 2012, 04:26
by Microbius
25 Replies
7124 Views
Last post December 31, 2012, 13:46
by w7lwi
35 Replies
6387 Views
Last post May 22, 2013, 06:29
by Microbius
5 Replies
5480 Views
Last post October 02, 2013, 08:40
by leaf

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle