Both versions are correct depending on the context in which they're used.

"It's the border between South Africa and Namibia."

"The South African - Namibian border."

Exactly my point.  I don't mind having exclusive images, even to the point of giving someone the first right of refusal; but, I do object to being told what I can do with those images when that same someone tells me they don't want that particular work.  From a purely business standpoint, for the agency to have this clause makes a limited amount of sense ... "we have photographer XYZ exclusive to us for all his work."  Nice advertising touch.  And having someone like Lise or Sean "in your pocket" is a definite plus.  However, from most photographer's perspectives it is nonsense unless he/she makes as much or more than they would by submitting to multiple agencies.  There is usually no economic advantage.  In fact the numbers from Freezingpictures indicate that for the vast majority it is a definite disadvantage.  Is there an ego boost to being exclusive, probably.  But that won't buy many groceries at the store.  Most of us are in this for the money and each must review their actions in relation to their own bottom line.  With a few noteable exceptions, exclusivity is 100 percent advantage to the agency and minimal, if at all, to the photographer.  Thus the rule would normally be viewed as irrational from the photographer's perspective, but not necessarily so for the agency (IS).

An interesting side thought.  Do you think there would be any change in the review process and acceptance criteria under an exclusive, first right of refusal scenario?  Knowing that if an image was refused, it would likely end up on a competitor's site (assuming it was a half way decent image to begin with).  In a perfect world, this should make no difference.  But people being people, would it?  I once worked for a company that was so hung up on beating their competition, that they deliberately broke Federal law just to keep a competitor from getting a contract.  And nothing simple like under the table payoffs.  International commerce with banned terrorist nations.  Major third and fourth party transactions to hide the illegal actions.  Didn't work and the Fed's caught them.  Fines in the millions and potential jail time for the executives who were involved.  Point is, people will sometimes do stupid things just to limit competition.  Just a hypothetical question.  Would it make a difference?

Very interesting numbers and one of the prime reasons I opted not to go exclusive, at least for now.  iStock is my best earning site, month-to-month.  Not in total number of images sold, but in total dollars earned.  SS is the best for total number of images, but trails IS dollar wise.

If IS would change their rules to allow images not accepted to be submitted or used elsewhere, I might consider going exclusive.  But locking in all images, whether they want them or not is completely irrational and I won't even consider the option so long as that rule remains.  Interestingly, images that are not accepted on IS sell very well elsewhere.  Thus the concern about foregoing income from images not accepted by IS.

If you really disagree with the reviewer's decision you can repost with a note to the reviewer explaining your concern.  Alternatively, try posting in the critique forum and see if others agree with you ... that is if you can post an image there.  I haven't been able to for months, as haven't many others.  If you want to post a full size image, you'd have to use an off-site service anyway, like Flickr, VOX or some such.

Be interesting to see Setho's reply.  I've been putting a copyright notice on all my submitted images from day one and no one has complained yet.

I can appreciate your frustration.  I'd guess 90% of my IS rejects are for "overfiltering."  The latest was an isolation which, originally, was rejected for being a tad too soft.  I downsized it in PS to the minimum size and it was rejected for oversharpening.  I fumed for a few days, then submitted a third version that was exactly half way between the first and second with a note to the reviewer that the only thing done to either downsized version was to shrink them down in PS using only the Bicubic option ... not even Bicubic sharpened.   That one was accepted.  And the original image before isolating the subject ... that was accepted full size first pass, softness and all.

So much boils down to individual subjectivity.  I was taught that if your image doesn't get noticed, it won't be bought.  Do what it takes to get noticed.  Two things ... good keywording and good colors (unless it's B&W).  I did an experiment on SS once.  Took a seascape and made three copies.  First true to the scene.  Second change hue to golden which came pretty close to sunset color.  Third way over the top with extreme golds and purples in the sky.  Which do you suppose sells the best?  Yep, number 3, followed distantly by number 2.  No sales on 1.  And IS, they accepted number 1 and rejected numbers 2 and 3 for ... overfiltering.  And you know what, they're right.  They are overfiltered.  But if sales are any guide, that's what the customers wanted.  No sweat, accepted and selling on all other sites I use.  That's why I probably won't go exclusive at IS.  If they reject an image, I can't use it elsewhere.  Here's an image they rejected that's providing a nice cash stream elsewhere that would be languishing in I were exclusive.  And it's not an isolated example.

Yeah, I finally decided to give it a go again, this time with an image half way between the first and second sizes.  I put a note in the description explaining 11 mp too soft, 4 mp over sharpened and new image half way between should be just right.  It will be interesting to see what sort of response this one gets. 

Well version 4.0 was finally accepted.  Something I'll need to keep in mind for the future.  Don't downsize too far or it may look oversharpened.  Shoot for that Goldilocks size ... just right ... about half way between the original and the minimum.  7 mp or so.

Yeah, I finally decided to give it a go again, this time with an image half way between the first and second sizes.  I put a note in the description explaining 11 mp too soft, 4 mp over sharpened and new image half way between should be just right.  It will be interesting to see what sort of response this one gets. 

I usually don't complain about rejects on IS; but, I had one the other day that has me wondering what next.  Mentioned it on the iS forum, but no response.

A few weeks back, I submitted an image of a woman jumping in an open field with a row of trees in the background.  Image was accepted, no problem.  A bit later, I thought the image may do better if the woman were completely isolated from the background.  Erased the background and resubmitted (nothing done to the woman's image, all work in TIFF).  Came back rejected as too soft.  OK, I can live with that.  Reduced the image (originally 11 mp) to 4 mp and resubmitted again.  You guessed it, rejected for being over sharpened (camera sharpening zero, RAW conversion sharpening zero, and no sharpening in post processing).  Besides, it had just been rejected for being too soft.

OK, now I have an image of a woman that is too soft, too sharp and just right.  I'm feeling like Goldilocks and IS is the three bears.  I could submit this to Scout, but I'd like a reply somewhere in my lifetime.  I could make an image in-between 11 and 4 mp and see if that's "just right", but who knows.  Or I could forget the whole thing as the image is selling elsewhere.

Any thoughts and/or suggestions?

A few years back I bought a 77mm Nikon circular polarizing filter for use with my Canon lenses.  Price was moderate and the filter works just fine.  I don't know what the prices are today.

Quote from: w7lwi on August 03, 2007, 11:04

I pulled the following comment off another thread (it's my comment) as that thread was started regarding reviewing at IS and evolved into a brief discussion about LO.  Given another thread about LO on another site, and some rather inappropriate attacks that, while expressing an individual's feelings, were never-the-less out of line, I thought it may be good to give others an opportunity to discuss LO in a more "civilized" manner.

Having read that "other" thread and noticing your BOLD-capital red letters at 30px there, along with your attacks, - I don't even care what you have to say here. Just another anonymous troll and a drama queen you are, with no ID and no portfolio to check.

Yack.

Sorry Yack, but I think you have misread something somewhere.  None of the threads on the other site were mine.  I don't even belong to that site.  What I pulled was from this site and contains nothing of that virulent nature that could be seen elsewhere.  That was the whole purpose of this post.  To give people an opportunity to discuss LO in a more calm and restrained manner.  As to no portfolio, I'm on all major site (SS, IS, DT, BS LO, etc.), but choose to have a different identity on each site for privacy reasons.  Neither anonymous troll nor drama queen.

I pulled the following comment off another thread (it's my comment) as that thread was started regarding reviewing at IS and evolved into a brief discussion about LO.  Given another thread about LO on another site, and some rather inappropriate attacks that, while expressing an individual's feelings, were never-the-less out of line, I thought it may be good to give others an opportunity to discuss LO in a more "civilized" manner.    Are there problems at LO ... sure.  Are there good points ... also sure.  The following has been my experience there and what I believe to be the reasons for it.  No LO bashing, just reasoned analysis.  It accomplishes nothing to get emotional and rant on these forums.  Only shows your state of mind and clouds your ability to think straight.  So ... what have others experienced and how have you reacted to that experience and possibly learned from it?

The first thing I thought of when I saw the note was that this was an LO review.  I've been with them since last year and love the way their reviewers (bouncers) respond to submissions.  That being said, I do have a major problem with LO.  Zero sales.  Same images (and keywords) that are all selling well on IS, SS, DT and elsewhere have not had a single download on LO.  I don't blame LO for this.  I'm sure they are pushing my images the same as anyone else's.  I assume it's the market they are addressing.  Each agency has their own target market and marketing strategy.  And I know others are doing well there. If my images were not doing well elsewhere, it would be obvious where the problem lay.  But since they are doing well, several with triple digit downloads, I can only conclude the market LO is addressing is looking for images other than my particular style/subject matter.  Not a problem.  Perhaps later on, as I branch out into other types of subject matter, this will change and I will be able to see a trend.  In the meantime, I'll just stick with both what I know works and where it works.