pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: Double Standards!  (Read 13387 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 06, 2008, 09:09 »
0
Got a rejection from LO last week.  It was just some bog standard shots of some eggs on a white background, feathered shadow underneath to ground them (as per my usual style).  They were a little noisy I guess, because I shot them on my old 350D on ISO200, but that wasn't why they were refused.

They were refused basically because they were bad isolations.  Stray pixels was the reason.

But then I looked at the portfolio of the "bouncer" who reviewed my photos, and found that they have a portfolio that has absolutely shocking isolations in!  We're talking obvious on camera flash, focus on the wrong parts sometimes, white balance issues and worst of all...  they had clearly been cut out using the pen tool, but they have left a tiny bit of shadow under the object!  But not a nice feathered shadow just to ground the object, a horrid, horrid black line basically that abruptly stops!

My shots, although not perfect, were a thousand times better than that, and yet they were rejected!  Double standards is not a good trait in a stock agency!

NB:  I'm not adding which reviewer it was, or what shots they were, that's not fair at all.  But suffice to say, between the patronizing note and the double standards, I'm not impressed!


« Reply #1 on: March 06, 2008, 10:38 »
0
I am not surprised that reviewers get preferrential treatment in their own place of work.

Many stock photo agencies are perhaps not big and organized enough to make the reviewers to stick to a strict code of conducts.

« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2008, 10:43 »
0
They are a (relatively) new agency, and I get the impression that they have recently upped their quality control.  There was a time that they took anything and everything, I haven't sent in much this year, so I was quite surprised to get a couple rejections from LO - for example on photos accepted by DT, StockXpert and SS - so when you say "double standards" I believe that anything you may not think does not meet today's quality was submitted in the first couple years and would definitely not get in today.

LO wants to mark its territory as a mid-stock agency, so you would really expect the highest quality standards.   You always hear the photographers say "if it's technically fine, accept it and let the buyers decide".  It must be hard to draw their line.   They certainly have photos that the other agencies DO NOT have, which means they can perhaps steal customers from a place like Istock,  but also a customer from Istock is used to perfect isolations and may never return if they download those that you mentioned.

« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2008, 10:53 »
0
They certainly have photos that the other agencies DO NOT have, which means they can perhaps steal customers from a place like Istock,  but also a customer from Istock is used to perfect isolations and may never return if they download those that you mentioned.

I would hope they wouldn't even download them.  Even from a tiny thumbnail you can see all the above mentioned problems.

But hey ho.  Just find it strange that they are the first to reject images when they have a pretty small library and small buyer base.

They're not really mid-stock either - the price for a large image is only $4, which is less than others!  Mid-stock I would count as $50-$100 an image.

« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2008, 11:04 »
0
They are mid stock for those that have over 100 downloads and can set their own prices.  I have a few there at higher prices.

« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2008, 12:30 »
0
As I pointed out in another thread, for reviewers, who are also contributors, to judge the images of their competitors, the issue of conflict of interest is inevitable.

Stock photo agencies should hire non-contributors to review the images of the regular contributors. LO is not the only one having this problem.   

« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2008, 13:06 »
0
They are mid stock for those that have over 100 downloads and can set their own prices.  I have a few there at higher prices.

Why does everything I read put me off the site?

That surely is just confusing to buyers?

vonkara

« Reply #7 on: March 06, 2008, 13:33 »
0
As I pointed out in another thread, for reviewers, who are also contributors, to judge the images of their competitors, the issue of conflict of interest is inevitable.

Stock photo agencies should hire non-contributors to review the images of the regular contributors. LO is not the only one having this problem.   
Totally agree, but it would be difficult to find people whit photography knowledge who aren't already contributors.

Even if they find some, many of the professional photographers who have not worked in the stock photography business doesn't have the same standards as even micros have I think. They rarely put the same amount of time to photoshop a picture. However, my studio teacher was not having it. :)

The better option would be to pay some contributers about the same amount as they earn whit their portfolio and whit their agreement, disable their portfolio. But that will also push the administrators to pay their reviewers much more. I know that reviewers are small paid so I don't think that will be the case for now


« Reply #8 on: March 06, 2008, 14:05 »
0
I am sorry, I simply cannot understand why some of our photographers cannot stand up for ourselves and are willing to find every excuses for stock photo agencies.

If your local government is running a deficit, can you, as a taxpayer, accept to have the same police officer who laid the charge against you to be the judge at your trial for your traffic offence?

Stock photo agencies should not hire the same person as reviewer and contributor. There are plenty of people and agencies around. If a person works for LO as a reviewer, this person can still contribute to other agencies. Reviewers get paid. If the reviewer's pay is small and unfair, you have the option not to be a reviewer but as a contributor. To have your cake and eat it is not ethical.

But this is not the reviewer's problem. Stock photo agencies should understand that a biased reviewer will deny the agency's opportunity to have the best photos online and make the most profit. This is common business sense too.

« Reply #9 on: March 06, 2008, 14:15 »
0
'You want to have your cake and eat it'

Well thats what I do with cake, I eat it. I've never bought a cake and then thrown it away.

« Reply #10 on: March 06, 2008, 17:09 »
0
my comments were removed by me as in the final analysis,  they did nothing to advance the cause of this good forum or to maintain a good relationship with others here,  with whom I have developed friendship.     -   

    -tom 
« Last Edit: March 08, 2008, 12:30 by a.k.a.-tom »

« Reply #11 on: March 06, 2008, 17:23 »
0
d
« Last Edit: March 08, 2008, 12:28 by a.k.a.-tom »

« Reply #12 on: March 06, 2008, 17:49 »
0
If you think it's an invalid rejection, you should write support.  If a reviewer is doing something wrong according to their standards, they will (hopefully) instruct that person.

Although it may be a conflict to be both a contributor and an inspector, I think it's unfair to assume he/she will act unethically.  If this is the case here, it is probably not an isolated event  and reporting to the site will only make such behaviour clear.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #13 on: March 06, 2008, 17:49 »
0
Just out of curiosity the first question that comes to mind is:
How does one go about obtaining information about the reviewer who just rejected my images?

I can hardly expect with my experience to be able to perform such accurate detective work.

I have always been an advocate of stepping up the requirements for a reviewer.
Some reviewers lack the experience, know how, and the maturity required to perform those duties.

After all is said and done, I rest easy knowing that my images are in the loving hands of a mother of 3 children,
who is a stay at home mom, and earns extra money as a side line reviewer.

It might be of some curiosity for those who care that LO pays a premium to those reviewers who "Reject" rather than approve an image.

« Reply #14 on: March 06, 2008, 18:05 »
0
Are you sure about it  ??? ? ?

« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2008, 18:06 »
0
In LO, you receive a msg with their name/nick, or you can see in the site (View old submissions).

Zymm also shows the reviewer's name (you are even oriented to write the reviewer, not the admin, if you have an issue).

Regards,
Adelaide

gbcimages

« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2008, 20:17 »
0
On the other hand...  Just to clarify that I'm not some whinning babyhead.....

It's all part of the biz.  Part of the game.  To stop uploading because you may think there might be some bias...  would not do you any good.  It would only be your loss.

I have had rejections of every sort and kind from every one of the 12 agencies that are selling my stuff... and some of them I thought were bogus too.......
 
and yet....  I'm still uploading to all of them.  It just goes with the territory fair or not.  As long as those checks keep coming... I don't really care. 

Seren...  my philosophy is... "If one won't take it.... another one will and... they'll sell the heck out of it!"   Keep the faith, Seren!! Don't let this get you down... just say to yourself,   'it ain't no biggie'.     peace 8)=tom

Amen to that. The way that I look at it, if I myself don't like what a site is doing I close my account and move on. that's it

« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2008, 23:29 »
0
Just out of curiosity the first question that comes to mind is:
How does one go about obtaining information about the reviewer who just rejected my images?

I can hardly expect with my experience to be able to perform such accurate detective work.

I have always been an advocate of stepping up the requirements for a reviewer.
Some reviewers lack the experience, know how, and the maturity required to perform those duties.

Because they send you a cutesy message with each batch with slightly patronizing comments, with their NAME at the end of the message!

The thing that REALLY concerns me about this particular reviewer, is that they have a few photos, but almost their entire portfolio is fractals.  No recent photos to speak of.  And the ones that are there are not always technically good (see above comments).

So my images are in the hands of someone who mostly sells fractals.  Makes me wonder if they don't sell as many photos there because they're either too good, or not good enough.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2008, 03:15 by Seren »

« Reply #18 on: March 06, 2008, 23:35 »
0
If you think it's an invalid rejection, you should write support.  If a reviewer is doing something wrong according to their standards, they will (hopefully) instruct that person.


I never said it was an invalid rejection, it was fairly borderline with noise problems in my eyes.  But they rejected it for "stray pixels".  Well, there weren't any stray pixels because I shot it on a white background and didn't do anything to it in photoshop... so there was nothing to be stray!  They didn't reject it for the obvious problem, which I thought was strange.  Although saying that, it wasn't a problem on iStock and ShutterStock where they are anal about noise (I think I just see noise in all my old shots now, getting too used to the 5D!).

Was just pointing out, that the reviewer in question had extremely dubious pictures in their portfolio that frankly look worse than my mother can take.

« Reply #19 on: March 07, 2008, 00:43 »
0
Actually, LO should be given credit in having the reviewers sign the reports. That is fair, transparent and accountable.

I also understand why the reviewers get paid more for rejections. Because, if you reject, you have to give reason(s). If you approve, you only need to send a standard message.

I don't have any problems to have stay-at-home mom to review my photos. Her marital and parental status has nothing to do with her ability to judge the merits of the images.

Regardless if there are any actual biases, stock photo agencies should avoid the conflict of interest in a situation when a reviewer is also a contributor.  That has nothing to do with whether or not a reviewer is actually fair or ethical, it is the simple principle of fairness and justice, if you want to run a serious and credible business.



« Reply #20 on: March 07, 2008, 07:44 »
0
If you think it's an invalid rejection, you should write support.  If a reviewer is doing something wrong according to their standards, they will (hopefully) instruct that person.

Although it may be a conflict to be both a contributor and an inspector, I think it's unfair to assume he/she will act unethically.  If this is the case here, it is probably not an isolated event  and reporting to the site will only make such behaviour clear.

Regards,
Adelaide

+ 1 for this post!

The first thing to do would have been to write either write support at LO or to even take it to Bryan if you feel it is that serious of an issue. Complaining in such negative tones about a specific individual should not be done on a public forum like this. And to specifically slam the reviewer's art/talent in this forum in the manner in which you have is totally inappropriate if you ask me. This person has feelings too!

One of the great things about LO is that you do indeed know who the reviewer is - which is very rare in the industry. This makes the whole point of "biased reviewers" almost moot since you can go see their work. The other sites are hiding their reviewers so you can't even know if there's some bias or not!

Another unique thing about LO is the fact that you could have just written the reviewer back and asked for more explanation about the rejection - you can't get that with other sites since their reviewers are anonymous. All of the reviewers at LO are very open about giving you help and explaining why they rejected an image.

And, sometimes they do make mistakes - it isn't always just because their trying to put you down and supress your images. And maybe there indeed are "stray pixels" that you haven't seen. Often reviewers have found things in my images that i didn't see myself. That's why they're there.

It just seems the best course would have been for you to write either the reviewer or Bryan or support to find out more before coming here and dissing LO.

Mitch
Disclaimer: yes, i am the forum moderator for LO but i've also learned over the years that it is better to try to resolve an issue and get all the information before publicly making accusations. I'm not perfect, i've done that in the past too, but i'm saying that i've learned from my mistakes. It is far to easy to be negative on the internet since we aren't facing the person we're righting about as if we were talking face to face. I try to always post as if it were talking to that individual directly - makes things less confrontational.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2008, 07:50 by maunger »

« Reply #21 on: March 07, 2008, 08:05 »
0
my comments were removed by me as in the final analysis,  they did nothing to advance the cause of this good forum or to maintain a good relationship with others here,  with whom I have developed friendship.     -   

    -tom 


« Last Edit: March 08, 2008, 12:29 by a.k.a.-tom »

« Reply #22 on: March 07, 2008, 08:39 »
0
And maybe there indeed are "stray pixels" that you haven't seen. Often reviewers have found things in my images that i didn't see myself. That's why they're there.

You can't have stray pixels in an image that was shot on white and not isolated after the fact...

Perhaps the reviewer meant to say something else.  I guess that's the flaw of letting reviewers write personal comments, and why I prefer iStock etc because you always get a clear rejection, rather than someone using terms that perhaps are ambiguous (that's not to say the iStock reviews aren't ambiguous, but you always know what what the terminology means because it's standardized).

The thing is, on iStock you can see all the reviewers portfolios and they're all extremely fine photographers.  Why is lucky oliver using someone to review who doesn't appears to have a distinctly average grasp on photography?  I've had a few over there that have made me think "hmmm, that's a little bit weird", but not questioned it until I've dug a little deeper now.

« Reply #23 on: March 07, 2008, 08:52 »
0

However, knowing the the world is filled with people of dubious integrity, I have no problem with a  'member'  here giving a  heads-up warning to fellow members of a possible problem.  None of us is a strong and wise as all of us together. With the investigative power of our MSG family at work, we can make determination of such subjects.  If we all find the possiblity to be invalid... then we can fix matters, apologize and, move on. 


One incident of a photo being rejected doesn't indicate possible "dubious integrity" to me - especially without any followup investigation! If there were a series of incidents that would be something to report.

This week, I had one photo rejected at Dreamstime for being out of focus - yet 4 other agencies accepted the image... Does that mean i can come on here and claim that Dreamstimes inspectors have something against me or are doing something wrong?

This member should have asked the site itself to investigate the situation first before sounding a warning! We've all had incidents where we've had images rejected and blowing the horn first isn't usually the best choice. As we have all learned - rejections happen and 95% of the time, the inspector is right. But we don't come complaining of every rejection.

We have a responsibility as individuals to the companies that we supply to - we are expecting them to act professionally, yet we don't give them the same respect and should them the chance to investigate the situation BEFORE blowing the warning flag here is the professional choice to make.

How many people could possibly construe that LO is doing something inappropriate from Seren's post - when there's more likelihood that there's nothing suspicious going on at all? In my opinion, it isn't responsible to make accusations without more proof than one image being rejected (and again, yes, i've done it in the past and i've learned from that mistake).

« Reply #24 on: March 07, 2008, 08:57 »
0
I didn't find Seren's comments slanderous.   8)=tom

hmmm...

Was just pointing out, that the reviewer in question had extremely dubious pictures in their portfolio that frankly look worse than my mother can take.

Not exactly a nice thing to say. Maybe not "slanderous" but i would hope that it isn't something she'd say to the reviewers face - and by my way of thinking, then it shouldn't be stated here in this thread.

Edited to clarify
« Last Edit: March 07, 2008, 09:37 by maunger »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
35 Replies
11969 Views
Last post July 09, 2010, 15:10
by lisafx
10 Replies
3272 Views
Last post November 03, 2011, 05:39
by lacee
27 Replies
19457 Views
Last post October 16, 2011, 15:48
by fujiko
6 Replies
1794 Views
Last post March 21, 2013, 11:54
by Veneratio
5 Replies
2074 Views
Last post March 02, 2016, 11:14
by trek

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results