1
iStockPhoto.com / How did THIS one get through?
« on: February 21, 2008, 15:31 »
I am not a complainer (doesn't every complainer start their post that way?) but, I couldn't help but to really feel as though the review process needs to be a little...no...ALOT more fair at most of the sites.
Let me start by giving this image as an example:
If you use the zoom function, you can see a few problems with the image:
1. The lens is dirty. We all know that no self respecting photographer is going to shoot through a lens that dirty.
2. The removal of the word "Canon" from the lens is horrible. The clone is obvious and not even or blended.
3. The blown highlights (which is seemingly 'the old standby' when it comes to rejection reasons- we all know that digital cameras suck for retaining highlights AND that sometimes we sacrifice highlights in certain parts of an image for proper exposure in the main subject...but I digress)
Overall, it is a pretty simplistic image and well photographed subject. I can see overlooking some of the issues, but when there are that many, on a subject that well photographed, it seems ludicrous to accept another mediocre (at best) image.
Here is the ....'and then...': The photographer is exclusive to Istock! Could that be the golden ticket? Being exclusive means that you can submit so-so images and build your portfolio faster? I am submitting quality images, 15 at a time per week, and getting silly rejections on one or two of them, so I am not complaining that I never get any images accepted, but I just wonder if those one or two would slide if I was exclusive?
Let me start by giving this image as an example:
If you use the zoom function, you can see a few problems with the image:
1. The lens is dirty. We all know that no self respecting photographer is going to shoot through a lens that dirty.
2. The removal of the word "Canon" from the lens is horrible. The clone is obvious and not even or blended.
3. The blown highlights (which is seemingly 'the old standby' when it comes to rejection reasons- we all know that digital cameras suck for retaining highlights AND that sometimes we sacrifice highlights in certain parts of an image for proper exposure in the main subject...but I digress)
Overall, it is a pretty simplistic image and well photographed subject. I can see overlooking some of the issues, but when there are that many, on a subject that well photographed, it seems ludicrous to accept another mediocre (at best) image.
Here is the ....'and then...': The photographer is exclusive to Istock! Could that be the golden ticket? Being exclusive means that you can submit so-so images and build your portfolio faster? I am submitting quality images, 15 at a time per week, and getting silly rejections on one or two of them, so I am not complaining that I never get any images accepted, but I just wonder if those one or two would slide if I was exclusive?