I know how it's like to be reviewer, so I know that if you look at images 100% you can't make such mistake. This is one of images that was rejected at FT. It is already most popular image in my port, even tho its uploaded seveal days ago. It's of course accepted at IS, DT and all other sites I work with. And I am sure no one can say this is not stock worthy image.

I actually don't have problems with IS rejections lately. My acceptance ratio moves up every month. The only thing that I can't understand sometimes is artifacting. Sometimes I simply can't find what the reviewer saw as artifact. I'm starting to think it's a halo that appears sometimes around very bright objects...
Otherwise, I'm fine with IS rejections....which I can't tell for Fotolia...

Quote from: Whitechild on February 26, 2010, 22:15

Is it really possible that 6 images are so in borderline, that one agency accepts 5 and rejects 1, and the other agency rejects the same 5 and accept the only rejected image from the first agency? Theoretically it is possible, but practically....the probability is very low. I would accept this theory even if SS accepted all 6, and FT accepted only 1. I would just say that FT has much more strict rules. But my case is a paradox. 

It's not 'a paradox' at all. The fact that every single image was rejected by one agency or the other suggests strongly to me that your work is considered borderline.

If you've ever been a reviewer you would know that 95% of images are very easy to make a decision on because they are either very good or very bad. It's the other 5% that are tricky because you could make a decision either way. Your images may even be borderline on a number of issues such as technical quality, composition and saleability of subject and every agency will tend to be harsher or more relaxed on each issue. Individual photographers also tend to be fairly consistent in the quality that they produce too, mostly all very good, mostly all very bad or mostly all borderline. Being a reviewer can be a very educational experience, even for just a few weeks.

The truth is, if you submit technically good, well composed images with reasonable sales potential then you will hardly ever get any rejections. It's not a lottery and the reviewers aren't all idiots, it is 99% down to the contributor.

Hmm, let me see what math says.

If you have 6 borderline images, you got exactly 36 combinations for them to be accepted. Let me list you some combinations:
1. everything rejected
2. only first accepted
2. only second accepted
3. only third accepted....

...

10. first three accepted
11. 2,3,4 accepted...and so on
so, that's 36 combinations. Which means, there is a probability of 1/36=0.02777 to be accepted only one combination...which is my case.
That doesn't support your theory.

that is 2.77% 

I'd see as paradox that FT accepted anything at all. If they decided to accept 1 - it is almost 17% probability to hit one rejected by SS, so nothing extraordinary

This theory is more acceptable.

Yes Lisa, exactly. I mean, What are we doing here? What is a good quality photo? Everything is loosing sense. I don't know if any of you saw the experiment with art critics and paintings painted by elephants?
Actually, elephants are trained to take a brush, to dip it in the paint, and to paint on a canvas. Later, two groups of art critics are called to review the art pieces made by elephants. First group of critics was told that paintings are made by elephants, and second group was told that paintings are maid by well known abstract artist. Everyone in the first group agreed that paintings have no artistic value, and said that paintings are just random blotches of color without any sense. But critics in the second group saw lots of "emotions" in these paintings, lots of anger and fear...and they agreed that images are excellent works of art.

I think it shouldn't be so hard to say which photograph is really poor quality, and which is not. At least, this should be easy for stock photography. There should be some real rules about technical quality of the photo. Or, if there are such rules, they should be followed by reviewers...or some reviewers should be checked from time to time from someone who really knows the job.
We are uploading lots and lots of images, to see literally random rejections. No one can make even a close prediction what will actually be accepted, and what not. Problems with 123RF rejection type "poor lighting/composition" made me stop uploading there. I simply don't want to loose my time uploading when I have last 4 batches rejected for the same reason, like I don't know how to adjust lighting.
 

Ok, I uploaded 6 images.

Shutterstock accepted 5 and rejected 1 image for poor quality, and Fotolia rejected the same 5 that Shutterstock accepted and accepted the same 1 image Shutterstock rejected, again for poor quality.

I know reviewers are human beings, but.... it seems some standards should be reviewed first.

We are paid less and less as the time goes by, not only for EL, but for everything else. These days, when I sell something for $1 or more I'm happy because more than 90% of all sales fall into subs category.

yes

Thank you donding Actually, I am pretty worried because 123RF is not bad seller for me.

I just checked my Veer account and I saw that I had 9 sales today! My last sale before this boom was 15 days ago... Anyone else?

Oh my...where should I start?

Cooooooooooooool! Congrats! I wish you many more!

I miss StockXpert too...