pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Perplexed Newbie with Question  (Read 5007 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 30, 2009, 14:48 »
0
Hello everyone,

Apologies in advance if I'm posting this in the wrong section.  My question pertains to what happened to me at one particular site, though, I can imagine, similar things could happen elsewhere.

After several attempts, I finally got accepted at Istockphoto.  I was quite pleased, and submitted my first batch of photos for approval.  I included the three samples that allowed me to be accepted there in the first place.  To my dismay, two of the three samples that were initially approved were now rejected due to "artifacting".  I guess I had a different person inspecting the photos on that day.

My question is: do I resubmit the images in hopes that I get the initial inspector back? Is it better to wait a few months til I resubmit.  Ironically, one of the images was the one that was immediately accepted when I sent my first samples, it's had several downloads already within its first week at Shutterstock.
I guess this an example of things that I'll encounter in this world of Microstock.


« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2009, 15:10 »
0
Read this (and do not resubmit if you were not offered the chance):
http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/application-photos-were-rejected/

« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2009, 15:17 »
0
It is common for iStock to reject pictures that were accepted at exam.

iStock has the most consistent reviewers, so if one photo was rejected by one it will probably be rejected by other too. If you see "Can resubmit" next to your image that means that the reviewer consider your image not too bad and you have a chance to fix the issues and resubmit (but it doesn't guarantee it will be accepted second time).
It's up to you if you want to bother spending time fixing and resubmitting your image(s).

Don't resubmit those images that are just rejected without "can resubmit". You may end up being punished.

lisafx

« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2009, 15:24 »
0
Agree with the above responses - don't resubmit unless you see the Can Resubmit button. 

Don't feel alone - artifacts/noise was the most consistent rejection I got when I started, and a lot of other people too.   At least they liked the images enough to accept you as a member, so clearly they saw potential. 

If you aren't already doing it, check your images at 100% in photo editing software to see where the artifacts are.  Most likely they are in shadow areas or smooth gradients like skies.  They can be added by software if you are doing a lot of post processing or by your camera if you are shooting in-camera jpegs.   

What helped me is to always shoot RAW and do your main levels adjustments before raw conversion.  That will cut down on your artifacts a lot!

« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2009, 15:31 »
0
Many thanks for the responses!

I just checked, and I do see the re-submit option on the two photos.  I'll see what I can do.  At least there are explanations, and they show you what they are rejecting with Istock.

Fotolia just sent me a file number of the ones that were not approved leaving me scratching my head trying to figure out which ones they were.

This should be quite a learning experience.

My portfolio really needs to grow if I'm going to do anything with myself in micro.  At this point I've got mostly animals and flowers.  I can see the flowers will be a challenge to get approved/sold.

lisafx

« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2009, 16:11 »
0
I wouldn't stress too much over Fotolia rejections.  They are among the most arbitrary and inconsistent site for reviews. 

Istock reviews are usually dead accurate and provide a great learning experience. 

KB

« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2009, 17:17 »
0
Fotolia just sent me a file number of the ones that were not approved leaving me scratching my head trying to figure out which ones they were.

Lisa is so right; Fotolia's reviews are a lottery. I've seen so many examples of technically and artistically great images rejected there (and some not very good images accepted).

To find out the rejection reason, you need to make a note of the image #, then click on "Member Home" which shows you your inbox. There you'll find a "Photographed Declined" message with the rejection "reason". If you have multiple rejections, click on one of the mail links to open the message and compare the image #.

The most likely reasons are "Quality of Photo" and "Type of Photo" (both of which are fairly meaningless and completely not helpful in my experience). "Overabundance" might be an indication that that type of photo will be difficult to get approved there (but not always; again, it often is up to the reviewer).

« Reply #7 on: January 30, 2009, 18:25 »
0
KB, I found message area in Fotolia where it says why the image was rejected.  However, I can't figure out which image is getting rejected for what reason.  Is there somewhere in Fotolia where you can go back to see what images were given a particular number?   ??? ???
Maybe I'm missing something that's glaringly obvious...

So far, I'm liking the fact that the other agencies are giving me a chance to see each photo that was rejected, and reasons why.

I've been reading the forums, and it's been interesting to see how people have such vastly different experiences on the sites. 

KB

« Reply #8 on: January 30, 2009, 18:38 »
0
It's sort of hidden, though easy to find once you know about it.  ;D

Click on the "My Files" tab, and you'll see the list of your accepted files.  Scroll to the bottom, and click on the link that reads "View deleted files". There you'll find the rejected files, along with their assigned numbers.

Simple, no?  :D

« Reply #9 on: January 30, 2009, 19:18 »
0
Hey, cool - found it!! Thanks - this will help me figure out the boatload of rejections there.  :)

KB

« Reply #10 on: January 30, 2009, 19:39 »
0
Thanks - this will help me figure out the boatload of rejections there.  :)
Not really!  ;)

I've stopped paying any attention to Fotolia rejections. Among all the agencies I contribute to, there's are the only rejections I simply ignore. Too bad; their sales can be very good.

michealo

« Reply #11 on: January 31, 2009, 15:20 »
0

After several attempts, I finally got accepted at Istockphoto.  I was quite pleased, and submitted my first batch of photos for approval.  I included the three samples that allowed me to be accepted there in the first place.  To my dismay, two of the three samples that were initially approved were now rejected due to "artifacting".  I guess I had a different person inspecting the photos on that day.


The two review processes have separate aims.

The first is a test of your potential as a contributer on istock, your images may not pass the normal inspection process but they can see that you have the potential to learn

This is the reason why you have to resubmit these images for regular inspection.

The inspection process is remarkably consistent.

Treat every rejection as an an opportunity to learn.

And the most single most important thing to do is to view your submissions at 100% on a correctly calibrated monitor

OM

« Reply #12 on: February 10, 2009, 06:58 »
0
I wouldn't stress too much over Fotolia rejections.  They are among the most arbitrary and inconsistent site for reviews. 

Istock reviews are usually dead accurate and provide a great learning experience. 

Amen to that! And if you look at some/a lot of the stuff that does get through, it's horrifying. Sometimes I wonder if they expect a contributor never to make 50 credits so the site gets to keep all the money! ;)

Meanwhile their database gets more and more polluted with junk.........then the buyers leave. :-\

Xalanx

« Reply #13 on: February 10, 2009, 07:22 »
0
I am sorry but I have to disagree over the consistency of istock reviews.
I didn't upload to them in months, due to the horrendous process to get my files to the site. So I have about 30 photos, no more.
But I uploaded 15 images few weeks ago with DeepMeta (btw - very nice piece of software). Well, among those there were about 8 with landscape and ruins from a very old castle in the mountains. They all are of the same quality, since I shot them in the same conditions with the same camera and lens. Only 5 of them made it through, the others being rejected for:
- keywords (the same keywords were used to all since all the photos were showing the castle in various compositions)
- overuse of noise reduction software (i do NOT use noise reduction software AT ALL)
or
- noise (same settings, same conditions, noise levels were the same in all photos. Camera is 5D, lens is 17-40, iso 100, sunny day).

Inconsistent reviews is the second reason for what I don't bother with istockphoto.

My 0.02$...

« Reply #14 on: February 10, 2009, 08:07 »
0
I am sorry but I have to disagree over the consistency of istock reviews.
I didn't upload to them in months, due to the horrendous process to get my files to the site. So I have about 30 photos, no more.
But I uploaded 15 images few weeks ago with DeepMeta (btw - very nice piece of software). Well, among those there were about 8 with landscape and ruins from a very old castle in the mountains. They all are of the same quality, since I shot them in the same conditions with the same camera and lens. Only 5 of them made it through, the others being rejected for:
- keywords (the same keywords were used to all since all the photos were showing the castle in various compositions)
- overuse of noise reduction software (i do NOT use noise reduction software AT ALL)
or
- noise (same settings, same conditions, noise levels were the same in all photos. Camera is 5D, lens is 17-40, iso 100, sunny day).

Inconsistent reviews is the second reason for what I don't bother with istockphoto.

My 0.02$...

Certainly a bit odd to get rejections based on both "overuse of noise reduction" and for excessive noise when you've used the same settings on much the same scene!

I don't seem to have this problem with them though, I usually find their reviewing fair, even when I have used a little noise reduction it seems to have been considered acceptable.

Have you tried posting samples in their critique forum to get some feedback?

Xalanx

« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2009, 08:34 »
0
No, I didn't. The photos are fine, they're on the other agencies - including FT. I don't think I'll upload anything to them until (hopefully) they'll change the upload limits. I just wanted to signal that there is no "perfect" agency regarding photo inspections.

Things are different for different people. Remember the thread where Forgiss was to stop uploading to SS because of weird rejections? Well, I haven't got a rejection from SS for a good while now. Maybe once or twice per month few "similar photo" but that's all.

My advice - just don't bother too much. Try to learn from it, get better, move on, shoot what's next.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
4094 Views
Last post May 31, 2006, 11:44
by fintastique
3 Replies
2619 Views
Last post October 07, 2006, 01:19
by fintastique
2 Replies
2651 Views
Last post June 18, 2007, 00:58
by Karimala
12 Replies
4750 Views
Last post March 07, 2008, 18:27
by madelaide
16 Replies
4479 Views
Last post July 19, 2010, 17:30
by rubyroo

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results