Microstock Photography Forum - General > Photo Critique
Help with rejection at DT and StockXpert
a.k.a.-tom:
I was just thinkin about all the other comments I've seen from so many others about that specific rejection "too dark" .... I ran into this a couple weeks ago with some shots. None I personally thought, too dark, which I understand is subjective to the individual looking at it. And the reviewer has a right to say it's too dark, as does the outfit he,she works for.
I took two of the shots that I had no particular passion for (simple stock shots, one was a sign) and lightened them to the point of where I thought the look was horrible. Resubmitted, one they took, the other they rejected, "too dark" . Fact was, anything that was 'light' in the original would be rejected elsewhere for 'blown highlights'.
They only reason I say anything is that ALL those pictures sell well elsewhere on 5-6 other sites.. the likes of SS and DT, which are pretty tough on rejections themselves. The pix StockXpert rejected as too dark yesterday, I wouldn't even consider lightening. They're good shots. They're selling fine just the way they are. I actually have some pix that they rejected as "too dark" or "poor focus" selling for me on SS ...2,3, 6 times or more per day since I put them up a couple weeks ago.
My whole attitude is, " you don't want 'em, no sweat, I know someone else that'll sell 'em for me. your loss." I don't even go back and argue with these reviewers anymore. Waste of time, especially with outfits where reviewers are also sellers. [see the current thread on DT and their 40,000 image backup] Talk about conflict of interest!
It's a lose/lose situation.
Forget about the rejection, give your pix to someone else, go out and shoot some new stuff.
.........
Maybe it's poor thinking on my part, I'm still relatively new to the biz and I'm not going to go out making radical changes at the moment. But more and more, I see a few sites that have done zip, such as a half dozen sells in six or seven months and others where I'm selling upwards of two dozen images or more, a day ( i still have a small 'folio - 200 plus or minus depending on the site). My point, it's a complete waste of time for me to go and check my stats on these sites... I am really thinking about pulling out of all those sites and just concentrating on the few that produce. Hey, it's the exact same portfolio on all of them. Generally the same titles and keywording. ...Why six in six months here and up to two dozen a day there?
I wonder if that may have been the thinking of the many that go exclusive to one outfit or at least make certain pix exclusive to certain sites.
I'd invite honest opinion on this. Good idea to be on a gazillion sites? Good idea to limit yourself to a few producers? I'm sure there are two schools of thought on this, it'd be interesting to hear both sides.
HughStoneIan:
--- Quote from: TGT on January 24, 2007, 12:27 ---I was just thinkin about all the other comments I've seen from so many others about that specific rejection "too dark" .... I ran into this a couple weeks ago with some shots. None I personally thought, too dark, which I understand is subjective to the individual looking at it. And the reviewer has a right to say it's too dark, as does the outfit he,she works for.
I took two of the shots that I had no particular passion for (simple stock shots, one was a sign) and lightened them to the point of where I thought the look was horrible. Resubmitted, one they took, the other they rejected, "too dark" . Fact was, anything that was 'light' in the original would be rejected elsewhere for 'blown highlights'.
They only reason I say anything is that ALL those pictures sell well elsewhere on 5-6 other sites.. the likes of SS and DT, which are pretty tough on rejections themselves. The pix StockXpert rejected as too dark yesterday, I wouldn't even consider lightening. They're good shots. They're selling fine just the way they are. I actually have some pix that they rejected as "too dark" or "poor focus" selling for me on SS ...2,3, 6 times or more per day since I put them up a couple weeks ago.
My whole attitude is, " you don't want 'em, no sweat, I know someone else that'll sell 'em for me. your loss." I don't even go back and argue with these reviewers anymore. Waste of time, especially with outfits where reviewers are also sellers. [see the current thread on DT and their 40,000 image backup] Talk about conflict of interest!
It's a lose/lose situation.
Forget about the rejection, give your pix to someone else, go out and shoot some new stuff.
.........
Maybe it's poor thinking on my part, I'm still relatively new to the biz and I'm not going to go out making radical changes at the moment. But more and more, I see a few sites that have done zip, such as a half dozen sells in six or seven months and others where I'm selling upwards of two dozen images or more, a day ( i still have a small 'folio - 200 plus or minus depending on the site). My point, it's a complete waste of time for me to go and check my stats on these sites... I am really thinking about pulling out of all those sites and just concentrating on the few that produce. Hey, it's the exact same portfolio on all of them. Generally the same titles and keywording. ...Why six in six months here and up to two dozen a day there?
I wonder if that may have been the thinking of the many that go exclusive to one outfit or at least make certain pix exclusive to certain sites.
I'd invite honest opinion on this. Good idea to be on a gazillion sites? Good idea to limit yourself to a few producers? I'm sure there are two schools of thought on this, it'd be interesting to hear both sides.
--- End quote ---
You make some really good points. To me, it all comes down to attitude. Do I want to be subservient to an agency and just fall all over myself when they even think my pictures might be good enough to accept on their site? For 25 or even 50 cents a download?? I'm no psychologist, but I've got to think there are a lot of people out there who actually have that attitude, almost a self-loathing maybe or at least a very low self-esteem? I try to maintain a realistic view: I'm giving xStock the raw materials they need to survive as a business. It's totally up to them whether they accept those raw materials or not. If they've proved themselves as a semi-promising source of sales, which is why I'm even in this industry, then if they reject an image for a reason that I don't necessarily agree with, I may consider trying to make it fit their spec's if I think it may have a good chance for sales there. If their rejection reasoning doesn't make any sense at all to me, then I see no point in trying to figure it out for literally pennies per sale. For my own images, I need to be the judge of which sites I want to put more effort into and which ones I need to be wary of or drop or never deal with altogether. To sum it all up, my attitude is: They're my pictures, and I decide exactly how much sweat I want to put into them; I don't let an agency decide for me. I need to use my own judgment and stand or fall on my own decisions. It's easy to think of these agencies as special caregivers and providers that exist to make life wonderful for us, when the reality is they are businesses and if we are dealing with them as submitters then we are business people whether we want to believe it or not. You can love 'em, hate 'em, leave 'em, or whatever; still doesn't change the fact that if you're in this then you're a part of one huge business venture. I never want a photo agency to be a crutch. I think if I'm not using anyone else as a crutch, I'll force myself to become better at what I've chosen to do. At least that's my hope.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version