|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - RalfLiebhold
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15
226
« on: September 20, 2022, 15:02 »
Accompanied by a good bottle of red wine and good music, I deleted my more than 10,000 pictures here today. Good Bye 123 
227
« on: September 14, 2022, 15:21 »
I have been having lots of rejections recently of editorial images. I thought nothing of it and have kept shooting other commerical subjects that get accepted. This week I have been in London covering the tributes to Queen Elizabeth in Green Park and Buckingham Palace. These are current news editorial images, yet the whole batch have been rejected for not meeting editorial guidelines. I really cannot work out why these would be rejected.
Anyone got any ideas? have Adobe changed their editorial policy? or know how to contact Mat Hayward to understand a bit more.
Thanks
Nothing has changed regarding our policy of editorial submissions. While these files you've posted about do not have recognizable people in them, they still do not quality as "illustrative editorial" which is all we are currently accepting. Please review the learn and support pages for specific guidelines on what is and what is not acceptable. https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/illustrative-editorial-content.html
thank you,
Mat Hayward
Mat, first of all, thank you for kneeling in here like this and facing the criticism  . Although we are hairstyle twins, now a little criticism of your statement.
Quite a few people here describe problems with the definition of "illustrative editorial" and you only refer to all well known Adobe guidelines, which obviously have a lot of room for interpretation.
Last week I submitted about 50 city views of Cologne as editorial, all rejected in the first round. On the second try, about 30 were accepted. Mat, this sucks and maybe you could address this issue and take it seriously. This is very much in need of improvement.
The Illustrative Editorial collection is designed to be showcasing specific, branded content. A soda bottle in ice with condensation dripping down the bottle comes to mind. While there is some gray area here for sure, what it sounds to me is that you are attempting to submit travel editorial content which if the true intent of the collection were considered, is not acceptable. The content in the OP here is newsworthy and based on a current event, not on a specific brand.
I hope that helps,
Mat Hayward
Mat, I think I've got the general idea - but I don't think your reviewers have. A close-up of German brand beer goes through, no question. A front view of a Vodafone store with a clearly visible logo is rejected. Modern protected architecture is usually accepted. Your presentation here contradicts many experiences of others here in the forum. I can't quite understand why you are fighting this criticism tooth and nail.
228
« on: September 14, 2022, 14:42 »
I have been having lots of rejections recently of editorial images. I thought nothing of it and have kept shooting other commerical subjects that get accepted. This week I have been in London covering the tributes to Queen Elizabeth in Green Park and Buckingham Palace. These are current news editorial images, yet the whole batch have been rejected for not meeting editorial guidelines. I really cannot work out why these would be rejected.
Anyone got any ideas? have Adobe changed their editorial policy? or know how to contact Mat Hayward to understand a bit more.
Thanks
Nothing has changed regarding our policy of editorial submissions. While these files you've posted about do not have recognizable people in them, they still do not quality as "illustrative editorial" which is all we are currently accepting. Please review the learn and support pages for specific guidelines on what is and what is not acceptable. https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/illustrative-editorial-content.html
thank you,
Mat Hayward
Mat, first of all, thank you for kneeling in here like this and facing the criticism . Although we are hairstyle twins, now a little criticism of your statement. Quite a few people here describe problems with the definition of "illustrative editorial" and you only refer to all well known Adobe guidelines, which obviously have a lot of room for interpretation. Last week I submitted about 50 city views of Cologne as editorial, all rejected in the first round. On the second try, about 30 were accepted. Mat, this sucks and maybe you could address this issue and take it seriously. This is very much in need of improvement.
229
« on: September 13, 2022, 13:37 »
And like it or not, SS is leading the pack by a sizeable margin.
Maybe for you, but not according to the poll on the right. For me SS was always by far the leader but over the past few years they have been eclipsed by Canva - last year I made less than a third on SS than I did on Canva. So far this year SS is third after Canva and Adobe. If it holds up it will be the first time ever for Adobe to beat SS but I expect that will continue going forward.
as has been discussed recently, the poll is based on a small sample - for many of us SS outferforms AS by a factor of 2-3
Thanks for the short crisp explanation. It looks the same for me.
230
« on: September 13, 2022, 06:58 »
Calling ss racist rejections for same images uploaded to another account?
Well, Well, I don't know what to think anymore. Photographs that look great and are selling in other agencies and whose model release has been accepted without any problem, are rejected again and again in SS because supposedly the model release is not valid. I have already written my problem above. Nobody answers me anything other than, I can't have two accounts and I can't upload photos to two accounts. What a forum, so little help.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Because you accuse them of being racist and blacklisting you not asking about rejection reasons or why a model release is rejected. We can't help your anger. You're right the support is terrible and they don't answer, been that way for years. You can't have two accounts. What should we answer to that?
I can't really confirm that about the support. Last week I had incomprehensible rejections because of incorrect PR. After the contact letter on the same day came a few follow-up questions from support and after reviewing my case, I received a clarifying helpful answer.
231
« on: September 12, 2022, 11:09 »
Maybe Shutterstock guidelines are helpfull for you  Our policy does not permit one person to hold multiple accounts without expressed written permission from Shutterstock.
Since each person or entity can only own one portfolio, a second account would be permissible if it is registered under the name of a different entity, with its own copyrighted material.
If you also own a company, you would be allowed to have one personal account under your name and one business account under the company name. You may not share content between the two accounts, each account must have its own owner with its own content.
232
« on: September 12, 2022, 01:04 »
I seem to have problem with uploading photos to 123RF about 5-6 days. No photos appear on dashboard and no sales in a week. That has not happened for a long time. Has anyone have same problem?
Also no new sales in more than a week, which never happened. This is until I clicked on "Earnings this month" and see there is now a new monthly/daily earnings page. I did indeed have sales the last week, but they are not reflected on the old Dashboard Overview. There is a new column "Download packs", but no indication of where the Plus sales will be reported. Not sure what that is? More concerning, I know I was very close to payout (something like $46), but now my earning summary reported only $23.06. This site is so broken. 
Same with me. I don't see any downloads for September. I can only see the downloads in the daily statistics.
233
« on: September 10, 2022, 15:40 »
I don't post much because I'm way too busy shooting pictures and doing searches.
Congratulations on your successes. Well, you post here constantly, so you seem to have time. May I ask you what medications you are taking? I would like to have the same stuff for a good and colorful world 
234
« on: September 10, 2022, 15:29 »
235
« on: August 25, 2022, 15:07 »
..... My stuff is mostly crap.
I think that explains your 10 cent problem
236
« on: August 16, 2022, 13:49 »
I upload here regularly, several images per week. Last week various close-ups of trees with ripe fruit and onion field.
All images so far completely rejected because of quality problems. I haven't changed anything myself and this high rejection rate is new to me - it's been going on for weeks now.
The complete series, on the other hand, was completely accepted by Shutterstock. So it can't be due to focus and image noise
I never had a complete batch rejected. A single image every now and then? Yes. But at acceptable terms for me. Editorial issues? Also yes. Multiple.
But maybe I was just lucky the past few weeks.
These complete batch rejections are new to me and unfortunately are happening more often lately. It is interesting that these rejections of all images occur in one go. With the second submission, the review is then usually done in batches, sometimes over several days, and the images then go through.
237
« on: August 16, 2022, 13:28 »
Ok, this is also part of the truth. All rejected images are approved in the second attempt. I do not think you have to understand this 
On Adobe? I generally take a rejection as, pretty sure that someone looked and I'd expect the next review on AS to be the same. Not so on SS of course where the bots do the reviews.
Should I be sending things in a second time to AS?
Pete, in my experience, it has always made sense to try a second submission with Adobe as well. For me, most of the images go through after all. If not, they are really crap The same is true for editorials. The reviewers seem to have some leeway here.
238
« on: August 16, 2022, 11:13 »
Ok, this is also part of the truth. All rejected images are approved in the second attempt. I do not think you have to understand this
240
« on: August 14, 2022, 12:32 »
I really don't want to rant about Adobe. But I've also been getting an unusually high number of rejections lately. Some batches are rejected completely. Something has changed here.
Strange how experiences can vary across contributors. I'm actually not seeing that at all. And I'm the first to admit that not all of my submitted images are top notch quality neither unique. So for the few that AS rejects I think "fair enough". I can't recall being flabbergasted by a quality issue rejection. At Shutterstock yes, but Adobe? Not really.
That said, with many people complaining, there must be something going on indeed. When was your latest upload Ralf? Mine dates back from last weekend.
Roscoe, as far as looking at rejections in general, I'm right there with you and wouldn't even bring that up here. And sometimes you need someone to tell you that you have produced crap  I upload here regularly, several images per week. Last week various close-ups of trees with ripe fruit and onion field. All images so far completely rejected because of quality problems. I haven't changed anything myself and this high rejection rate is new to me - it's been going on for weeks now. The complete series, on the other hand, was completely accepted by Shutterstock. So it can't be due to focus and image noise
241
« on: August 14, 2022, 12:19 »
In terms of revenue, Shutterstock still tops my list. So Shutterstock can still be worthwhile, though probably not for everyone
242
« on: August 12, 2022, 02:32 »
I really don't want to rant about Adobe. But I've also been getting an unusually high number of rejections lately. Some batches are rejected completely. Something has changed here.
243
« on: August 04, 2022, 11:32 »
Ok. Yes. But it was a hard cut there. I mostly do food.
I see no reason why the topic of food should be less in demand during Corona. My thesis would be that the competition increased strongly because there was little to photograph during Corona, for example, due to travel restrictions, and many photographers switched to food
244
« on: August 04, 2022, 10:26 »
That certainly depends to a large extent on what subjects you are photographing.
I myself have many pictures on Corona that went well during the crisis and now notice a decline in sales, because the crisis is moving more and more into the background.
For new images I see no difference and sell now rather better than before. Of course, this may also be due to the fact that my skills for keywording and post-processing have improved significantly. Hope this helps.
245
« on: August 03, 2022, 03:07 »
I wonder why I did not get this e-mail from 123rf. I also can't find any information about this topic anywhere on the website.
Where can I find the location for opt out?
Wilm, go to "Konto-Einstellungen" and then "Preference Settings"
246
« on: July 13, 2022, 07:19 »
I am actually not a friend of account closures. It's just a pity for all the work and sometimes higher sales come in unexpectedly.
But with recent sales via Adobe, for which I get only 10 cents, Eyeem has then cracked my pain threshold.
I canceled my account 2 months ago. The whole thing went quickly, friendly and without problems.
I also believe that the agency is at the end.
247
« on: July 06, 2022, 13:20 »
The bigget problem with services like WS is if they close down the business. Not that I think they will do - but what are the consequences? Will you still get royalties?
Good point. For me, too, this is the main reason why I keep my hands off Wirestock. If Wirestock were to disappear from the market, I assume that the images would happily continue to be sold by the partner agencies. Money and pictures are then lost.
248
« on: June 21, 2022, 12:33 »
Super Mat and thank you, however I rather miss a tool that puts my keywords in a promising order
249
« on: June 12, 2022, 13:54 »
they wouldn't have the need to buy fake Trustpilot reviews 
Why on earth would they buy reviews like that?
lol...
These aren't the bought ones, you just wait 3 - 6 months and then you'll see the ones they paid for .
If you want to see the bought ones, check out Envato on Trustpilot ( who were only recently at 2.6)
Once again, you guys want to live in denial that you're working for the bad guys, so be it.
Keep licking boots and carry on.
No thanks, I dont see a point in following companies I don't subscribe to. You seem very upset at them, when its an industry-wide issue ("free" sections). Its just business. It was good, now its not.
Love the keyboard warriors who call everyone else out anonymously. Lets see the portfolio that is so much "more" than all us peons...
So basically you don't care you sell through an agency that scams it's clients,
and I'm the keyboard warrior . ok. you're right.
Did you even read the reviews? They are all from people who did not cancel their subscription in time. That's not a scam, but laziness on the customer's end. Read contracts before you sign them! Just because it's online and you click a button it doesn't mean it isn't a binding contract.
You can find the exact same reviews on Truspilot for every stock photo agency that offers yearly subscriptions. Shutterstock has them, iStock has them, Adobe has them, Dremastime has them.
People sign up and don't realize the cheapes prices are for a yearly subscription and if you want out after a month you need to pay for a different subscription that costs you more for photos. Or people sign up for the free trial, without reading that you actually have to cancel it. Signing contracts without reading them and then giving the company a bad review for your error, that's just stupidity.
There is a reason you can't just back out of yearly subscriptions: You already paid the cheapes price possible for images you downloaded and that price only comes with the condition that you pay for a minimum of 12 months. That's the condition you agreed to and you can't expect to pay the same cheap price, without fulfilling that condition.
If you only want a few images, you have to pay much more per image as part of an on demand package. Allowing people to cancel yearly subscription before 12 months would mean giving away images that should be sold for on demand package prices for the lowers subscription package prices. The only ones being scamed like this would be the agencies (not the artists by the way. We don't earn a dime from subscription plans customers's don't want/need and use anymore, so we basically get screwed over either way.)
Thank you Firn for detailing this. Trustpilot and other rating portals are usually the vomit bag for people who are not able to solve problems or admit their own mistakes. The negative reviews I have classified exactly like you.
250
« on: May 16, 2022, 12:26 »
Since then Alamy punishes me with longer review times. Everything is actually a bit childish.
Wait, your QC rank dropped because of ONE rejected image? 
That's really childish.
Though I must say the speed at which my images are reviewd varies a lot even at the same rank. Sometimes it's a day, sometimes it's 3 or even 4 and can be even longer if a weekend is inbetween, where no reviews happen at all.
But the whole review process on Alamy is a mess. What I can't stand (or maybe in all these years wasn't able to figure out) is how you can only check the "editorial use only" box after an image was approved and is basically up for everyone to buy.. Not that my Alamy images sell like hot cake the minute they are approved and that's a realy worry of mine, but the thought has crossed my mind. What if a buyer buys an image after it was approved before I have the chance to mark it as editorial and used it commercially? Then I am the one to blame.
The QC indicator in the dashboard was unchanged. So far, my review times have been one to business days. After the rejection, it was suddenly almost a week. In the meantime, everything has returned to normal. Your Editorial thoughts has crossed my mind too Its strange.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
