MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: PeterChigmaroff on May 23, 2008, 09:27
-
Do you folks resubmit rejections after making an attempt at a fix?
-
yes if its a simple fix and just one rejection reason sometimes I resize them to a smaller category
-
I do. I make the correction and downsize the image if it was rejected for artifacts or noise. 80% of the time they accept on the second attempt. You should also go over the image with a fine tooth comb. I have had a second rejection on the same image with a totally new reason. At that point I give up 99% of the time.
-
yes, if it was something specific and it takes less time than to give them another photograph.
eg. missing out commas in keywords
no, if it's something more elaborate.
with certain sites, i take their rejections seriously, if what they accept do sell . with a couple of sites, i don't even bother, as i keep reading their rejections and they sound like disposition codes. better to forget those sites as it's a trigger-happy reviewer ... and your resubmission will get rejected again
once bitten, twice shy;D.
-
You want to be careful if you're resubmitting to iStock and the original status was No resubmit. They will take action if it keeps happening and they keep catching you (and I know, they don't always catch it as there are a lot of inspectors and many incoming images.
Back before that status was given to rejections, if you made significant fixes/edits or reprocessed the RAW, it was OK. Their admins had said so in the forums. Once the status was introduced, I kept working the old way - IOW if I thought I could make a significant change, typically by reprocessing the RAW, I'd do it. I got a nasty note from an inspector metaphorically rapping my knuckles with a ruler for submitting an image that had been rejected with a no-resubmit.
So, for the occasional image I felt strongly about, I'd ask Scout to change the status to Can Resubmit (posting a copy of the reworked version on my web site so Scout could see what I'd done). He/she did, and the resubmitted image then went through the queue and got approved.
-
I never bother unless I feel strongly about an image and the problem is actually something that I can correct. It's rare though that I resubmit. I'm not sure that's the correct tactic though. On one hand it seems like a waste of time. And in the case of IS, if it gets rejected yet again, I've wasted an upload. On the other hand though I'm potentially losing sales.
-
If it's flagged as "Can Resubmit" and I feel that making the effort will be worth it.
Sometimes images that IS rejects sell fine at other sites, and I don't feel a particular desire to re-edit and have different versions of my images floating around out there. Other times, I will make the effort, particularly if I think the image will sell well on IS.
If it's flagged "No-resubmit" I don't try sneaking the image back through the queue. I've got enough images lined up for upload that I don't need to be clogging the queue with stuff they already shot down.
-
Thanks to everyone for the help. I just started to fix and resubmit some of my images only to have the iStock system tell me I have exceeded my quota of uploads. So does that mean a resubmission is considered a new submission as far as upload totals per 168 hour period? If so, that sucks.
-
It is inconvenient, but think what'd happen if it weren't this way. There would be no disincentive to uploading quickly edited images (let's say with sensor spots and sloppy clone jobs on logos) and then re-uploading them with fixes if the inspector noticed and sent them back. They really want you to choose very carefully with those upload slots and they've built the system to enforce that.
-
It is inconvenient, but think what'd happen if it weren't this way. There would be no disincentive to uploading quickly edited images (let's say with sensor spots and sloppy clone jobs on logos) and then re-uploading them with fixes if the inspector noticed and sent them back. They really want you to choose very carefully with those upload slots and they've built the system to enforce that.
Your are correct and I certainly see your point. I naively believed that submitters were more professional than that. Fact is I, and I don't want to sound arrogant, there was nothing wrong with the images in the first place.
-
I have repaired a rejected image on IS only to have it rejected the second time for a completely different reason. At one time my acceptance at IS was only 28.8% It's now 49%. I no longer upload anything questionable at all to IS. Being limited to 15 per week sucks! I now keep my que full of images that I feel pretty good about and it has brought my acceptance rate up a lot. I'm working on getting my rate well above 50% just in case I want to go exclusive one day. I say this only because you need to be real careful with rejections at IS. Just because you repair what they rejected if for doesn't mean they will accept it on the second go. This very thing has kept my acceptance rate down and my portfolio small. Both hurt! I working on growing it because many people keep saying that IS is the best "Long Term" winner. I'm still waiting to see that myself. Never say to yourself "Oh they won't see that" WRONG.....They catch everything....and even things that aren't there unless you view at 200-300%!
-
I have repaired a rejected image on IS only to have it rejected the second time for a completely different reason. At one time my acceptance at IS was only 28.8% It's now 49%. I no longer upload anything questionable at all to IS. Being limited to 15 per week sucks! I now keep my que full of images that I feel pretty good about and it has brought my acceptance rate up a lot. I'm working on getting my rate well above 50% just in case I want to go exclusive one day. I say this only because you need to be real careful with rejections at IS. Just because you repair what they rejected if for doesn't mean they will accept it on the second go. This very thing has kept my acceptance rate down and my portfolio small. Both hurt! I working on growing it because many people keep saying that IS is the best "Long Term" winner. I'm still waiting to see that myself. Never say to yourself "Oh they won't see that" WRONG.....They catch everything....and even things that aren't there unless you view at 200-300%!
I see what you mean alright; no doubt they have some of the shrewdest pixel peepers in the industry. Where else can you find someone who will spot specular highlights and call it chromatic aberration or designate an image as over filtered because it was shot in warm lighting.
-
By the way, I have NEVER resubmitted an image on IS that said "No Resubmit" That should tell you to forget it! I have once re-shot a similar image and submitted that. But never the same image! I'm sure that would get you in hot water. "That I don't need." It's hard enough as it is without testing their tolerance. IS is a brutal force, they don't play at all. Nor do they give a * about what we think they should have accepted.
Happy shooting to all! You can beat the rejection monster at IS but it takes 100% attention to the smallest of details. I'm still learning their ways. Used to piss me off but I soon realized the reality of it. Complaining doesn't help at all either. You'd better be on your game or they will strike you out fast!
Bottom line: Resubmit with caution!