I have given you all the help that I can. And you have still failed to answer the question regarding the reviewer's comments flagged against the individual images.

Were the rejection reasions for

1. Noise/artifacts

2. Lighting/white balance

3. Other



I have gven you a few good image possiblities in my previous posts. Your job to come up with the rest. If you want to make the $$, you need to heed decent advice and do the work. N one can do it for you.

Frankly I find the last choice in your poll in very poor taste and choose to abstain.

Another vote though for thread deletion.

Polska could be construed by the reviewer as a brand or a trade name. Either take it out and resubmit or not. Your choice.

Without seeing the full size it is very hard to judge because the technical accuracy of the isolation work is an important component. Aesthetically, nothing jumped out at me as being overly good or overly bad.

Just a few comments

Here clothing does not complement model. flesh tone looks too blue, crop too tight, and nasty reflection on eyeglasses. Sidelight from left just unnatural. Can work in some photos but does not work here.

http://www.123rf.com/photo_3072114.html

Here crop too tight, possiblly blown highlights, nothing interesting at all in the pic. I can also see a reflection of possibly a shooting umbrella in the bottom rim of the glasses, and the glasses may be a proprietary design.

http://www.123rf.com/photo_3072133.html

Here the choice of the golden yellow fabric or blanket casts nasty color tone on the model's lower body half, while the torso skin looks balanced towards blue color temeperature. Face looks like too much flat makeup, washed out, or possible over Photoshopped, Model has good body tone though, but I think her look is more suited to athletic theme rather than boudoir attempt. Nice shadows shows body dimension, but that yellow blanket should not have been used. Throws off the skin tones and takes the image out of balance.

http://www.123rf.com/photo_3072141.html

This one is just plain bad. It looks like she has a body part missing because the hand at left is blown in addition to being awkwardly posed.

http://www.123rf.com/photo_3072108.html

Really we could play this game all day.

I suggest http://strobist.blogspot.com/ and take their lighting courses there. They are free. The Lighting forum over at DPReview used to be pretty good and the guys there pretty honest in their  critiques.

I can't give you magic formulas for acceptance, nor can anyone else here. Submit your very best work. Look at the variety of what you are submitting. Perhaps shoot one or two new just to show variety in subject matter.

Include a clear and concise business image instead of models trying to play coy to the camera and not succeeding. Here is one I like on SS that I picked at random. Maybe look at this guy's port and get some ideas. I don't know the photog here, but if I were buying and saw this, I would look at the rest of his stuff too. BTW, I think the image is nicely lit here, even showing the folds in the black fabric of tthe suit.

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12786892-beautiful-businesswomen-speaking-with-somebody-by-mobile-phone.html

Did they list actual rejection reasons next to the photos that failed? The rejection reasons are important and may help indicate where your weaknesses are. If the reasons are noise/artifacts, you may have to adjust some things. If the rejection reasons are consistently lighting/white balance, then in their view, your exposures and color balancing are not quite right, or the strobes may be too hard on the subject.

The isolated on white look ok in the small size, like this one

http://www.123rf.com/photo_3071922.html

but it is hard to see how you handled the edge detail in the small views.

The model shots overall are average. Again it is very hard to tell the overall quality in the small views, but you seem to have a lot of lighting issues.  I like this one in the way that you composed it, but the lighting, meaning the shadow cast from the arm, does not work especially with the warm color background

http://www.123rf.com/photo_3024345.html

Same deal here - good photo but the lighting kills it

http://www.123rf.com/photo_3024343.html

I like the look of the model and the way you handle pose and space in both shots.

The bikini shots are pretty poor and are limited in their marketabilty.

As far as the model shots, this is the only one that jumps out for me as being a good seller

http://www.123rf.com/photo_3072187.html

The model shots are pretty mundane and they don't allow for creative space.

In this one here, the white balance looks horribly off

http://www.123rf.com/photo_3072199.html

I noticed some coffee cup still life shots. They do not pop at all and would probably be rejected for poor lighting/white balance. You might want to try for a look more like this - I just picked thia one at random. Not great, but there are nice shadows, and there is a nice highlight on the liquid from the cuo

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-6287707-cup-of-tea-isolated-on-white.html

Not trying to be cruel, but 123RF is not a good barometer for quality. Out of 200+ submitted there, have had one rejection.

Without seeing what you actually submitted and knowing the rejection reasons, hard to advise further.

Hope this helps you out.

Quote from: UncleGene on May 23, 2008, 16:03
Even if Space Needle is copyrighted (any links?), why do you think this photo can be treated as infringement? Is it about the title?

The Space Needle can be used as part of a skyline shot. In this one, you can see Mt Ranier off to the right. This is a very common postcard shot for Seattle.

I do see though some potential problems with some other architectural images in his portfolio should someone decide to use them commercially.  I don't know if MP allows editorial designation or not. Didn't look that far.

Serious buyers have little time for such nonsense. It is unfortunate that you had to concern yourselves with this kind of crap over there. The ratings system you desribe benefits no one except for perhaps those wo have too much time on their hands and screw others to get their own jollies. Better to concentrate on what is reliable, credible, and profitable for you.

Quote from: madelaide on May 23, 2008, 20:12
Maybe you haven't noticed, but I was away for a week, in a fantastic area in the interior or Brazil.  Tons of images, of course.  Sand dunes, rivers, waterfalls, trails on the savanna, wildflowers, sunsets, sunrises, moonlit sceneries. 

But right now I'm going to watch Indiana Jones. Talk to you later!

Regards,
Adelaide

No, we didn't notice at all...

Just kidding!!!

Have fun with the movie and looking forward to the new pics.

Quote from: fotografer on May 22, 2008, 16:37
I have an image which has all sorts of lighting issues which I nearly didn't upload 2 years ago but decided to just let the reviewers decide.   It has sold over 500 times at IS, nearly 900 at SS and various amounts over the other sites.  It still sells well but now that I have got better there is no way I would have uploaded that image now and it definitely wouldn't get accepted.  It surprises me everytime it sells as I now have similar and much better images in my portfolio but you can never tell what the buyers are looking for.

Your image has that nice undefinable X factor which appeals to buyers. Sometimes even if things are technically wrong, aesthetically it is appealling. Congrats on your odd success 

Perhaps they are screwing with their servers again. They don't seem to know what they are doing with them, oe of the reasons I left.

I just took a quick look out of curiosity. One photo I found that is obviously in need of a model release says Release information "n/a". The photo is not a news event, and is taken indoors on apparent private property.

Sorry, but from a buyer's viewpoint, I want to be sure that if such a photo is used, it is properly released. It is obvious that whoever is running this OPP game does not know the business.

Won't even link to the photo, because I don't even want to send a bit of traffic there.

My opinion: Stay far, far away from this one.

Really nice shot. I can see why buyers would find it attractive.

Cshack great comments. You also said

Also a question is how long before every category has an overabundance?

I think there is an overaabundance of smiling girls wth headsets 

I wonder if the reviewers really take a good look at what they think is overabundant. I recently sent in to DT a rare flower pic, and of course got the "too many flowers" rejection, even though there are no other pics of this species on their service. Accepted everywhere else.

On fotolia, I sent one of cultivated wetland grasses in a conservation area - nice shot and great sky - got the overabundant rejection. With environmental issues everywhere, I thought the image would be of good value. At Fotolia, apparently not. Again, accepted everywhere else.

As far as cleaning up ports, good idea to be self discplined in this area. I would hate to see the agencies arbitrarily bouncing stuff for no sales, but it may come to that in a few years.

Quote from: suwanneeredhead on May 21, 2008, 05:00

By the way doesn't Vista ONLY run Photoshop CS3? ... so if you buy a Vista machine, you have to buy all new Adobe software?

I am not sure on this. To me Vista is just another giant piece of expensive trash, and running three computers here, I refuse to play this Mother May I? crap on the internet to constantly verify software that I legally purchased.

I don't download music on my machines, I don't watch movies. Vista is all about DRM (Digital Rights Management) and nothng else in order to protect the entertainment industry. I work on my machines, and I don't need some giant bogged down piece of crap code dragging me down with constant M$oft spy checks. On my graphics machines, I don't even run any anti virus trash because I keep the machines off the internet. Just slows me down too much.

I didn't even upgrade Adobe Illustrator. I still have version 10. All I really use it for is technical drawing, and why do I need a new version for that, drawing straight lines and curves? For AutoCad, I still run AutoCad 2000, because the new versions are yet another upgrade racket and more bloatware.

Back to Bibble for Raw - I believe they offer a 30 day trial, and new cameras are added to the mix pretty quickly. It's not sleek and pretty like Adobe, but it sure does the job, and the correction tool for chromatic aberration works as well as or better than Adobe products.

Sorry about the rant. Thanks for listening.

Quote from: imageZebra on May 21, 2008, 00:03
Recently I purchased my new Rebel XSi. Having Photoshop CS2 I couldn't imagine I would have any problem getting a plug-in for my RAW files. Yes, the camera is new, but my Photoshop is not ancient (just one version down). So, I should be OK. Hah, not so fast...

After calling to Adobe tech support I was finally surprised with an answer that in order to have my CR2 files open in Photoshop I have to upgrade to CS3 version. Apparently, they told me, the Adobe policy is to not support their older version so everyone would go ahead and purchase their newest product. And they told me that word to word!

Yes, I know, I should not be so naive. And yes, there are ways around it. Maybe I find some third party plug-in, or just use Canon software; but I am so unsettled by such unscrupulous business. Is this even legal?

Just one more dissatisfied voice to already large crowd of unhappy Adobe customers...

It's part of Planned Obsolescence, and yes it is very annoying. The new generation 4 raw converters for Adobe need CS3 or Elements ver 5 or 6.

I use CS2, and I keep a current copy of Elements, and also have Bibble Pro because I need to keep up with camera upgrades. I do a lot of Raw processing and retouch for some wedding photographers so I need to be current. If I have problems with Bibble Pro of any kind, I have a direct line to the company owner.

I just refuse though to be the first to jump in the rabid queue of lined up and panting upgrade maniacs. For my professional work, there is nothing in CS3 that I want or need, so they can keep it. Next will probably be Photoshop that runs under Vista only. Just pisses me off.

In general, May slow. But yesterday I had a BDE at SS. Go figure.

This is one of the few forums I visit on a regular basis. You wil certainly get honest answers and opinions here. Most are given in a polite and cordial manner.

Some reasons I have left other forums - posters who write when drunk, name calling, continuous rants, overuse of profanity, and in one case, even emal death threats to other members. You won't get that here. The people are more business minded, even if some just making small dollars. Information is freely shared.

Thanks to the Leaf for taking the time to keep up a nice civilized meeting place.

Yes forgot about the cutting to DVD part. Sorry. Been 2 years since I really played with video for home playback.

I cut some wedding DVDs of video combined with stills using Roxio Easy Media Creator. I still have old version 7 and it worked well for home use. And not a lot of money. Played on every DVD player we tried it on and the wedding client really liked it.

I think you are best served by getting a real video editing program and doing it in there. Adobe Premiere Elements works well for a fair price. From what I remember that Windows Movie Maker pretty wonky and really doesn't transport well to anything.

While you're whining about the Yay name, we'll all be getting paid in Euros.

Quote from: leaf on May 19, 2008, 22:40

Quote from: snurder on May 19, 2008, 19:55


Josh, have you looked at Tin Eye and it's possible integration into your system? Take a look at the video there.

http://tineye.com/login

wow, cool stuff.
I have signed up for a beta account.

Yes it really is great. Back 2 years ago I had a travel agency keep ripping images off of my website. When DMCA kicked in, i then did not even notofy them (the travel people) anymore, I just notified their ISP and the host took the site down. No thefts from them since. I just don't have time to screw with stupid people anymore.

This tool excellent for tracking infringement issues, and also for those who enjoy seeing their images in use. Or better yet, for that person who has had no luck finding his "in use" images, and can finally land one ;-) There is something good for everyone here and it may finally at least help control all of the thieving. Getting very tiring.

Most value probably will be for designers and ad agencies. They can buy or comp a stock image, and get a good idea of where and if it already appears on the web.

Quote from: domencolja on May 19, 2008, 12:09
Josh, thanks for letting us know.

Is there a way to spread the word about confirmed thiefs on a unified web page? Maybe it would be a good idea for the microstock community and all the microstock agencies if someone comes up with "thief's board" so all us can communicate with appropriate microstock authorities and eliminate these, excuse me, idiots.

Could be very dangerous to do that. What if the originator is tagged and he/she is not the thief? There are then things like libel and slander issues. One  scenario where thngs could backfire is if the image is grabbed from a macro shooter who isn't even on the micros. And then that image get's copied over and over. I do believe one art site tried to start something like this and I think the abandoned because of such issues. Public whipping is not the answer and if such a site existed, it would be the site owner that is left holding the bag when it comes to damages due to defamation, etc..

I find the best way to spot a fraud is to look at the overall quality of the portfolio if findng a questionable or familiar image. If there is a load of garbage in the port, and one or two stellar shots, they are likely grabbed from somewhere.

Last year I ran across a contest for a company on the web (yes as a way to find their own promo images). In the rules it stated that the source file must be made available to the company, meaning raw camera file, photoshop layered file, or original vector file. They did not require you to submit it with the entry, but there was a qualiifier box to say, "Yes I have the source file and it is available for inspection" or something like that.

Maybe it is time to kick things up a notch and begin to implement such a qualifier. Apparentlty the common qualifier of "yes I own the copright" is not working too well. Availability of a raw camera file or files, would certainly put the brakes on the photo thieves. For vectors, much harder and I can't offer suggestions there. The vector stuff is just running amuck with theft especially in the old Eastern Bloc countries, (Russia, the Slavs, etc)

Josh, have you looked at Tin Eye and it's possible integration into your system? Take a look at the video there.

http://tineye.com/login

May not be feasible for every single image but could be useful if you just have that feeling it has been nabbed.

Mine usually overnite. Sometimes there is a small delay of a day.