Author Topic: Reviewer (Read 3611 times)

Fortunefame · « **on:** May 25, 2007, 08:33 »

I just have to vent/rant for a bit. On xx there is a guy who has only 300photos in his folio, sold 100, exercises photography since October 2006, shoots with a simple bridge cam, if you judge his pics you see that he has absolutely NO knowledge about whitebalance vs overexposed AND HE GETS TO REVIEW THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of our pictures.

I think this is totally unprofessional and not at all motivating for us contributors.

What do you guys think? Is my opinion too superficial or do you think that I'm right?

WHOAAAAAAAAAAA

CJPhoto · « **Reply #1 on:** May 25, 2007, 08:42 »

Without knowing the the details to your rant, the question could also be what is the role of the reviewer.

IMO they should only check that there is no noise/ pixilation/logos/copyright/models/out of focus etc that the buyer cant see from a small preview. Things like colour, the buyer can determine for themselves.

leaf · « **Reply #2 on:** May 25, 2007, 08:51 »

i think color should be part of it as well.

if an image has a nasty color cast, then it is not a good image.

Fortunefame · « **Reply #3 on:** May 25, 2007, 09:09 »

Quote from: CJPhoto on May 25, 2007, 08:42

Without knowing the the details to your rant, the question could also be what is the role of the reviewer.

IMO they should only check that there is no noise/ pixilation/logos/copyright/models/out of focus etc that the buyer cant see from a small preview. Things like colour, the buyer can determine for themselves.

What do you mean by the role of the reviewer? Do you suggest that he could only be reviewing if there are logos on the pic or not? He says he's a reviewer so I guess he's doing the whole thing.

ANyway, I found it frustrating that an amateur gets to review our images.

Note: I'm not saying this because I had pics rejected:)

rjmiz · « **Reply #4 on:** May 25, 2007, 09:18 »

Must be a SS reviewer....the scrape the floors of their forum to find reviewers. They actually hire people right out of the forum!
A reviewer is a thankless job....low pay, no benefits, boring job description, and no no excitement....Not like us guys who spend all
our waking moments meeting new people, getting out and taking pictures, mixing it up and having a good time.

sharply_done · « **Reply #5 on:** May 25, 2007, 09:36 »

There are many people who enjoy looking at and critiquing photographs who cannot, no matter how hard they try or how many courses they take, make a 'nice' image. Just because this reviewer is a member of that crowd doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't know what he's doing.

To put it more succinctly "Those who can't do, teach."

sharpshot · « **Reply #6 on:** May 25, 2007, 10:07 »

I read that they get paid about 2 cents per image reviewed. You won't get Daivd Bailey reviewing for that

Good photographers would probably lose a lot of money if they took time from photography to review other peoples photos.

rjmiz · « **Reply #7 on:** May 25, 2007, 15:15 »

"To put it more succinctly "Those who can't do, teach."

Are you aware that this is meant and said usually in a derogatory way. However I don't think you meant it that way.
I certainly would not want to be operated on by a surgeon who was taught by a sub-par performer.
Or that was taught in a school in Mexico because they were not accepted into med schools in the USA.

There has to be a love of labor, to enjoy reviewing. I certainly don't expect any successful photographers
to be working for pennies on a microstock site.

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #8 on:** May 25, 2007, 16:27 »

Quote from: sharply_done on May 25, 2007, 09:36

There are many people who enjoy looking at and critiquing photographs who cannot, no matter how hard they try or how many courses they take, make a 'nice' image. Just because this reviewer is a member of that crowd doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't know what he's doing.

Sharply has a point. Maybe it can apply this way. I enjoy classical art of all forms. I couldn't mold a decent looking human nose out of a piece of play-doh. But I can look at Michelangelo's work and tell if it's anatomically accurate. About all I can paint is my house, but I know the difference between a Monet and a van Gogh and something my kid did in 1st grade (some of the kid's stuff was better...LOL). Likewise, a reviewer wouldn't necessarily need to be a great photog themself to know what the agency that employs them wants in it's portfolio.

Then again, maybe that's a bad analogy.... I'm flexible... LOL

-tom

...but to FortuneFame's point.... we've all had pix rejected that absolutely shouldn't have been, leading to question the ability ..or integrity, of a reviewer.

Karimala · « **Reply #9 on:** May 27, 2007, 08:50 »

Quote from: sharply_done on May 25, 2007, 09:36

There are many people who enjoy looking at and critiquing photographs who cannot, no matter how hard they try or how many courses they take, make a 'nice' image. Just because this reviewer is a member of that crowd doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't know what he's doing.

Being a "Bouncer" myself at LO, I can agree with Sharply's assessment. There are several areas of photography where I'm still struggling (lighting in particular), but that doesn't mean I can't decipher the quality of another person's photo in the areas where I can't get it right as an artist.

And to follow along Tom's theme, I also used to be a copy editor at a daily newspaper. Copy editors aren't always the best writers, but they can easily recognize a mediocre sentence or paragraph and tweak it to bring out the best. Ironically, it was while I was a copy editor that I learned how to review photos, because I had to work with the photo editor and photographers daily, so I had my reviewing skills even before I knew how to operate a camera! :-)

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Reviewer (Read 3611 times)

Fortunefame

CJPhoto

leaf

Fortunefame

rjmiz

sharply_done

sharpshot

rjmiz

a.k.a.-tom

Karimala

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors