Hi there,

i never ever had rejections at IS with the reason "Flat Dull Colors", only at SS. Since i photograph with the Nikon D3X i don't have rejections "Flat Dull Colors" at SS, but now at IS. Do you think that a former SS-Inspector changed to IS or is it just an unhappy coincidence?

It is just BS... As many other rejection 'reasons'...

Veer existed in their own right for quite a few years before Corbis came along and bought them...to suggest that they do not know what they are doing is profoundly ignorant. It is the micros that are new, and have come along and undercut on pricing and greatly contributed to it being so tough to make a living shooting stock these days. Perhaps Veer are wanting to establish a viable microstock collection with out descending to the level of those sites that take all comers just for the numbers.

This still doesn't explain why your rejection rate is far higher than any other micro I contribute to, and that includes iStock, the most rigorous, demanding micro in the business. Streamlining the upload process doesn't save us much time, when most submissions end up getting rejected anyway. Since Veer's rejection rate is far higher than all of the successful micros (this is borne out by complaints from many other contributors, not just me), your needs must differ substantially from the rest. Saying you want high quality, commercially relevant photography and illustration is a pretty generic statement, since all micros make the same claim. It doesn't tell me anything specific about why Veer's rejection rate is by far the highest in the business. This from a new micro with no proven track record! If you don't want certain types of content, you should state that clearly, so we don't waste time uploading imagery that Veer doesn't want in the first place.

The only reason Veer has made it this far is because of the Corbis name, and now this new Dash for Cash program.These things can't keep you going forever, people will become disillusioned, as I have. Where are the downloads? We need something of substance! Please show us some respect and have a little consideration for the value of our time.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Just to add a bit of difference:

iStock accepts crappy images... No further comment except Veer doesn't allow that to happen!

I left early on because I decided that the mass rejections for an unproven site were simply unacceptable, leading me to conclude that the site was not worth a further investment of my time. Judging from the disappointing experiences of other contributors (as reported on this website), I learned that I had made the correct decision. Like Lisa, I'm leery of reopening my account and resuming uploading only to have the same experience repeated. Have you improved your review process? Veer's rejection rate was by far higher than any other website I have ever contributed to. How do you explain that? How do Veer's content needs differ from those of other micro agencies?

Quote from: RyanB on May 07, 2010, 14:33

Quote from: lisafx on May 06, 2010, 17:57

I wish you the best of luck Aaron. 

I had my accepted images removed from VM several months back in preparation for exclusivity elsewhere (that I eventually chickened out of )

If I should decide to give it another go, can I have my accepted images reactivated, or do I have to start uploading from scratch?

Hi Lisa,

Thanks for the question.  Recently we have a had a few contributors who chose to have their accounts deactivated instead of deleted- in that situation we would to simply 'reactivate' the portfolio and they can get started uploading images once again.  In your case it does appear that your previously submitted images had been permanently removed, after you requested that we do so.

-a note to all-  If you are a former contributor who had previously had a contributor account which you had removed or deactivated, please message me directly at [email protected] if you would like to begin submitting images once again.  Even if it's not possible to reactivate any previously submitted images, I should be able to add the Contributor 'role' back to your account, saving you the trouble of having to re-register.

Thanks

I think the difference comes due to that you are used to iStock...
Veer is different. Well, to be more precise: There is no way you can upload same images under the same criteria on any site - not only on Veer. But Veer has a bit more tight review process than iStock. Also, sometimes there was some bulk rejections. I hope that won't repeat.

Looks like Albert Martin has become our newest resurrecter of old threads, like so many now silent alias's before him. 

Matt, that you again?   

Who is Matt?

Quote from: Albert Martin on May 06, 2010, 10:29

Sure thing, You'll have full pass IF YOU KNOW HOW TO USE YOUR CAMERA - FF preferred!

Also, you must have such images that aren't similar too much to images their exclusives have online there. Especially because their exclusives ARE INSPECTORS ;-)

Again, complete BS^^.  NOBODY gets a free pass on IS.  I have 5DII and over 90% acceptance rate (so presumably know how to use it) and still get my share of rejections.

90% is very nice percentage for micros... And, I won't comment about BS... But, I saw some of rejected images from some people which was better than those accepted. Difference was that bad ones uploaded by exclusives and better ones uploaded by non-exclusives. And that is called FREE PASS for me - crown is something that gives you discount there by all means ;-)

I am curious how many % do you have in QC passed on Alamy or Corbis ;-)



And exclusive inspectors approve images that are similar concepts to their own all the time.  I don't know how they manage to do it - would drive me nuts.

Well... I thought it may be interesting to see how it can develop... And it worked nicely ;-)

Ok... People you're right! I didn't said all ;-)

Sure thing, You'll have full pass IF YOU KNOW HOW TO USE YOUR CAMERA - FF preferred!

Also, you must have such images that aren't similar too much to images their exclusives have online there. Especially because their exclusives ARE INSPECTORS ;-)

Sorry for misunderstanding!

Can anyone upload?

I'm trying to upload via the website since FTP isn't working. But after 30 mins it still says uploading 1 of100.

Any insight? Thx!

I did uploaded some 90 images - but used 'upload via browser' button...

How they even can call them 'MAJOR' stock site when they can't overwhelm Shutterstock?
What is so 'MAJOR' there? Number of contributors? Well... I think Not. 55000 - 60000 is so small number! Shutterstock has almost 5 times more contributors and still makes better for all than iStock.
Is iStock 'MAJOR' for exclusives? Well - that was true in the past. Now they are merely covering 30% of market.
Their PROFIT? That for sure is MAJOR.

Well... I won't upload there, but I will be interested in shares of iStockPhoto for sure!

Why bother with them anyway?

Also, for cash that remaining you with not buying 500mm, you might find out that Canon lenses with TS-E marks are very interesting and bring in a totally new dimension in photos you make ;-)

So if I submit 100/wk starting today that means I can only upload 900 photos out of the 3000 I have. I guess I have a few hours work to choose the best 900 so that most can get accepted. If I can get 800 approved I'll be happy with the work/reward ratio. And hopefully sales kicking in the fall.

And what's up if the FTP? No worky...

Try to differ them in that batches... They don't like more than 2 from same subject ;-)

And... Be ready to have 30-70% of rejections too.

Quote from: dirkr on May 05, 2010, 06:04

They pay better the more images you have online already:

Well, I guess a $.35 difference on images 50-100 could be seen as "respecting seasoned contributors".  At least your answer made sense

Sorry... I thought you understood it from start.

$0.70 in my case for any image accepted up to 401 is much more than $0 on your team. Not to mention that silly upload limitations of 15 or so weekly ;-)

I now have more than 400+ accepted on Veer ;-)

So, that is what I call respect to contributors.

[EDIT] in your example of 50-100 accepted it sums up to $35 - $70 which is total for some microstockers on one or two sites for whole month of downloads... But, I am aiming for 400+ accepted in this promotion ;-)

Sharpen = loss of fine details.
If your images are unsharp then you must put better lens on your camera or investigate your shooting technique.
For stock in full size there is no need to sharpen already sharp photo.
If your image is unsharp and you need it sharp - only way to do it right is to reshoot!
Buyers are those who decide if they will sharpen or blur photos...