MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Help with rejection at DT and StockXpert  (Read 5004 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 15, 2006, 19:26 »
0
Hmm, apparently I'm the first one to post here.

I had this one rejected at DT for "Poor lighting setup, poor contrast or incorrect exposure."  StockXpert also rejected it as "Photo too dark".

Well, it's recycled paper, so it's a bit dark indeed.  I had already increased contrast to show fibers better (you can see them even in this thumbnail).  Any thoughts?



Regards,
Adelaide


« Reply #1 on: August 16, 2006, 00:05 »
0
hmmm well it is tough when photographing dark things, and it is also hard to see fromt he thumbnail, but I might agree.

You could try bringing up the lightness a bit.. perhaps maybe put the majority of the info in the top 3/4 of the histogram (if that mean anything to you)  also, I don't think it would hurt to spread out the info even more (increase contrast) as well

Quevaal

  • Rust in Peace
« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2006, 00:27 »
0
Could you perhaps upload a 100% crop?

« Reply #3 on: August 16, 2006, 03:31 »
0
StockXpert reviewers seem to have a bulk reject option as well, just had a batch 22 backgrounds rejected (well 2 were accepted) for being too dark. (I'm sure I will be eating my words in a few days when everyone else rejects them for the same reason)

have you tried putting the recycled papaer on your scanner just to see how the lighting is?

« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2006, 08:13 »
0
I tend to give up when they say poor lighting etc because every other agency for me accepts it and then its poor lighting or incorrect exposure for them. Unfortunately thats the way the ball bounces :( 

Not sure how to help although I'd love to know what to do to avoid that stupid generic rejection

Quevaal

  • Rust in Peace
« Reply #5 on: August 16, 2006, 09:25 »
0
Btw. when it comes to paper, just use a scanner if you've got one.

« Reply #6 on: August 16, 2006, 16:06 »
0
In fact I don't have a flatbed scanner, but a film scanner.  I took this image in a series of recycled paper and cardboard settings.



I could add a bit more contrast and brightness, I'm just afraid this will start to show artifacts next.  Histogram profile is almost totally above 50%, with peaks around 75%.

And you know how these things are, I sold this at 123RF today. 

Regards,
Adelaide
« Last Edit: August 16, 2006, 16:09 by madelaide »

« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2007, 23:51 »
0
Seems like StockXpert is still in "too dark" mode.  I just got over 80% rejection on a batch ...."too dark".   Don't have to eat my words, each that was rejected is selling on SS.  Sometimes, I just can't figure what they want at StockXpert.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2007, 23:54 by TGT »

« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2007, 23:55 »
0
StockXpert reviewers seem to have a bulk reject option as well, just had a batch 22 backgrounds rejected (well 2 were accepted) for being too dark.

sorry, meant for this to show up in my comment above.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2007, 23:57 by TGT »

« Reply #9 on: January 24, 2007, 00:46 »
0
i prob wont try them. got rejected 4 times...waste of my time and they are positively rude. even the comments that i heard others got for their photos...gosh.....

« Reply #10 on: January 24, 2007, 12:27 »
0
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.

« Reply #11 on: January 24, 2007, 13:15 »
0
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.

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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
3662 Views
Last post July 07, 2016, 01:21
by Dodie
12 Replies
3079 Views
Last post February 27, 2017, 07:18
by baz777
5 Replies
1711 Views
Last post January 10, 2017, 11:06
by chrisdorney
5 Replies
1934 Views
Last post June 23, 2017, 14:43
by dpimborough
7 Replies
557 Views
Last post February 09, 2020, 09:41
by dragonblade

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle