No takers?

I think they would accept image of gunned down Bin Laden with incorrect white balance, uneven shadows and large amount of noise artifacts. 

Lol.

You basically summed it up. I'm always getting quality issue rejections for my regular rf photos, but my editorial images from the same camera and using the same post process techniques are mysteriously of good quality, even for Alamy which are now accepting my stuff from the camera I bought last summer. For editorial, so long as the image has some kind of use and you write some factual babble in the description, they get accepted.

Quote from: Microstock Posts on May 10, 2011, 01:56

I like Cutcaster too. But they simply reject most of what I send them. When they launched the new site this year, I started to upload to them again and maybe the reviewers were in good mood as they were accepting my images, but since then it is an extremely high rejection rate for me.

I can't support sites if I can't get my images online with them. Believe me, I'm not uploading for my own benefit here, I actually would like Cutcaster to make it. Why would I spend time uploading to a site which hasn't given me a sale since 2009, I know I have a small port. but it's not for the want of trying. A lot of my rejected images, especially the editorial ones are sitting on Shutterstock, getting sales everyday.

Anyway, rant over.

Ranting old woman!   yeah you got to remember though, its pointless agencies are accepting images if theyre not going to sell or if the subject-matter doesnt fit the bill. In early years every agency accpeted on thechnical merit which is rubbish,  hence the stock market is so full of irrelevant material its unbelieavable.
Many agencies are tightening up. I agree with that.

so try again!  worst that can happen is a reject  and, well--------------- we are all used to that.

"its pointless agencies are accepting images if theyre not going to sell or if the subject-matter doesnt fit the bill."

I love it when newer agencies portray that they are different to the other agencies. They probably know that they will never catch up to agencies which currently have 10 to 15 million images and have to go for 'our agency is smaller but better' line. I am a very small buyer myself, 2-5 images a month and I know I need variety. I used to be able to find what I wanted, at least most of the time on Polylooks and I can easily find what I want on Deposit photos. The choice is very limited on Cutcaster, so as a buyer why would I go there. As a seller, I'm confused at the high rejection rate, when I personally think they need images. Anyway, so long as my photos continue to fit the bill at Shutterstock, Dreamstime and 123rf, I'm not that bothered, I just find it strange.

I like Cutcaster too. But they simply reject most of what I send them. When they launched the new site this year, I started to upload to them again and maybe the reviewers were in good mood as they were accepting my images, but since then it is an extremely high rejection rate for me.

I can't support sites if I can't get my images online with them. Believe me, I'm not uploading for my own benefit here, I actually would like Cutcaster to make it. Why would I spend time uploading to a site which hasn't given me a sale since 2009, I know I have a small port. but it's not for the want of trying. A lot of my rejected images, especially the editorial ones are sitting on ss, getting sales everyday.

Anyway, rant over.

Lol! I am actually laughing out loud here.

@ Luis, now we know why you do this 
@ Lisa, we'll be the judge of that 

Once I was giving a customer her change back - $6.66, and she insisted I give her $6.65 instead.

That's nuts.

@Warren ur still stuck on 666. Maybe if you disable one image, new ones will be accepted. 

The number of the beast and the beast has to be fed.

Yeah usually if it takes longer than a week, it means it's failed. If it passes, usually get confirmation within 48 hours.

I don't have the time to read all this thread, so sorry if this has already been said, but I was just reading this BBC report and the facts seem to be obscured. "The US also revised its account of how it took place, saying Bin Laden was not armed when his compound was stormed." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13276540

So there has been a revision of what actually happened, even though they were watching live images. News reports keep reporting like this also, taken from the same article. "He is believed to have ordered the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September 2001". 'He is believed', suggests it's not conclusive. If they are certain, why don't they report as 'He ordered the attacks on New York and Washington...'

"There was concern that Bin Laden would oppose the capture operation and, indeed, he resisted," White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters on Tuesday. In any situation what kind of resistance can someone who is unarmed do to someone who is armed? I'd love to see the the images the White House saw of him resisting, unarmed.

"Frequent payouts at CutCaster".

Now you're just being mean.  

Funny!

I thought this was the positive thread on msg, but there now seems to be 2. I may have to start looking for another forum if things continue like this.

Not kidding!!  the old stockxpert???  I used to earn a hell of a lot with them!  was my third best site, only IS and Shutterstock, toppled them and now with IS pretty much a gonner they should be doing really well.
They had one of the best crews and all.

ging to look into this.

haha where have u been lagereek? 

Quote from: Microstock Posts on April 26, 2011, 02:28

"Yes, I have seen agencies raise the rates they were paying contributors, and improve contributor conditions in other ways based on comments and suggestions in the forums."

I'm not doubting you, but which agencies?

A few years ago, StockXpert raised their subscription rates to .30 based on a contributor campaign in the forums (this was before Getty bought them and lowered back to .25). 

When Fotolia introduced subs, they were originally on a scale from (I believe) .22 - .30.  Based on contributor action in the forums, they raised them up to current levels .30 - .42. 

Most recent example is the Istock Partner Program (Thinkstock, etc.) which paid non-exclusives .25 but has raised it to .28 due to activism in the forums. 

There are lots of other examples, but those are the three that come to mind off the top of my head. 

haha, power to the little (micro) people!!