Author Topic: All batches rejected? (Read 5840 times)

gwolters · « **on:** July 30, 2013, 10:49 »

Hello around the world!

I am just a little upset, because the last batches (all together 40 images) got completely rejected.
We normally got always between 80 and 100% accepted and other agencies accepted them too.

The last review before that happened they just approved 6 of 25 images.
After that I wrote an email to submit and asked if they could have a look again to the batches.
I also asked if it could be possible that Atilla was at work, because every image was marked with poor lightning.
After some days I got an answer: "...the reviews seem appropriate -- all for image # - rejected for composition...."
Sounds somehow funny, but isn't really...

And now they rejected every image from different batches, marked at most with lightning and composition etc..
Just for info: It was a mix of people, animals, business and so on, and most inside the studio, some outdoor.

Did someone make same experience?
Is this the "regular" way how it should work?
I know that our images are not perfect, but this is curious...

CD123 · « **Reply #1 on:** July 30, 2013, 11:10 »

Never get this type of problem with them. Rejection reasons normally reasonable and worth taking note of. I would suggest that you have a closer look at the images which got rejected, compare them to your previously approved images and see if you can not also find a notable difference between them.

disorderly · « **Reply #2 on:** July 30, 2013, 11:18 »

My most recent batches had high rates of acceptance. What rejections I've had have involved more extreme lighting, and even some of those were accepted. I too would suggest you give your rejections a more critical eye and determine if there's anything off about them. Check at 100%, and look for noise in shadows and other aberrations.

gwolters · « **Reply #3 on:** July 30, 2013, 11:30 »

Thanks for your help!

I know what you are talking about.
We experienced that in the first some month when we started with microstock.
In he beginning we could not understand why something got rejected, because own photos always look good for yourself.
We are not in the status yet, to say that we generate excellent images, but we have some thousand accepted images online, which are not that good as this rejected ones.
There was a small amount of macro images, which I know that the lightning is not really good. There is no problem when they reject them, but not the other ones.
We are using professional studio equipment and the light settings are always checked twice.
I would not say anything if they just take around 50%, but 0% is just curious.
It more looks like Attila now is our special friend and it will stay like this in the future.

gostwyck · « **Reply #4 on:** July 30, 2013, 11:38 »

I had a batch of 10 the other day in which I had a 50% rejection rate. Normally my acceptance rate with SS is +98% with over 5K images in my portfolio. It seems that the reviewer simply did not like my 'composition' on close-ups of food (which happen to be my best-selling subject matter). It happens sometimes.

disorderly · « **Reply #5 on:** July 30, 2013, 11:38 »

Quote from: gwolters on July 30, 2013, 11:30

I would not say anything if they just take around 50%, but 0% is just curious.
It more looks like Attila now is our special friend and it will stay like this in the future.

It is counterproductive to assume that the fault lies with an incompetent reviewer. You have already had a second review of some images and the result was unchanged. To me that suggests that they did indeed see something that justified the rejection. Claiming that the rejected images don't have a problem is both arrogant (I know the truth, so they must be idiots) and useless. Get someone else to critique the images; maybe they'll see what you can't or won't.

I have disagreed with rejections on occasion. Generally I can see why they ruled as they did, even if I think they're wrong. But it's their site, and I've learned to give them what they want, at least most of the time. If a whole batch gets rejected, I assume I've missed something important. Either I figure out what it is, or I move on to the next shoot.

gwolters · « **Reply #6 on:** July 30, 2013, 11:49 »

@disorderly

Thanks for you honest words!
In parts I for sure would agree with you, but something like this never happened before.
This are really different kind of batches and I just can't understand that 100% should be garbage, even if other agencies take the images.

But in one thing, you are absolutely right: We should always just look forward and always try to make better images than the last ones.

Ron · « **Reply #7 on:** July 30, 2013, 12:11 »

Its been a problem all along. I do not believe that a batch can be 100% at fault when someone knows what they are doing and when they have established a portfolio already. There are fluke rejections, and its been proven to be a fluke when upon resubmitting without changes 100% gets accepted.

But as always, post a few images if you want to get some second opinions.

Megastock · « **Reply #8 on:** July 30, 2013, 12:37 »

Interesting - I had a batch of 14 images all rejected this morning for the same lighting/composition reason. At the same time, all 14 accepted on DT (and other sites) so I can't be totally out to lunch on exposure and lighting!

gwolters · « **Reply #9 on:** July 30, 2013, 12:43 »

Now I know at least not to be alone!

luissantos84 · « **Reply #10 on:** July 30, 2013, 12:52 »

reviewer is on fire, I call this easy money, just great

heywoody · « **Reply #11 on:** July 30, 2013, 12:55 »

Quote from: gwolters on July 30, 2013, 10:49

....I also asked if it could be possible that Atilla was at work, because every image was marked with poor lightning....

Quote

How did that work out for you?

zeamonkey · « **Reply #12 on:** July 30, 2013, 21:27 »

You are not alone. I had my last 3 batches rejected 100% and now taking a break from uploading to SS. Several photos in those batches has since been added to my portfolios at Getty and Stocksy....they were not series but all very different subjects and lighting.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #13 on:** July 31, 2013, 13:34 »

Part of the problem is a vague rejection reason, that doesn't explain what the "composition" flaw is? The lighting rejection has three reasons in it.

Doesn't it say more than Composition? Something like... Composition. Limited commercial value due to framing, cropping, and/or composition.

and Lighting: Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.

Just something additional to you and a number of others who use this as an argument, what SS rejects and other sites take, are not connected. The fact that DT and FT and DP (or anyone else) might take something, has nothing to do with what SS or IS will accept.

I get things accepted on SS that are regularly rejected on IS. Not as many are on IS but were rejected on SS. The reviews on those two sites are stricter than the rest. From my past experience.

I don't bother with the rest of the places anymore. Getting accepted is only the second step (creation is the first) Third is, will the images get downloads? So if someplace takes every little thing I submit and makes few or no sales, what's the point?

3rd is more important than image counts in portfolio, rejections or anything else. Bottom line is downloads and income, the rest is just conversation.

Quote from: Megastock on July 30, 2013, 12:37

Interesting - I had a batch of 14 images all rejected this morning for the same lighting/composition reason. At the same time, all 14 accepted on DT (and other sites) so I can't be totally out to lunch on exposure and lighting!

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #14 on:** July 31, 2013, 14:27 »

I have compiled a list of rejections from SS if you want to see justlet me know.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on July 31, 2013, 13:34

Part of the problem is a vague rejection reason, that doesn't explain what the "composition" flaw is? The lighting rejection has three reasons in it.

Doesn't it say more than Composition? Something like... Composition. Limited commercial value due to framing, cropping, and/or composition.

and Lighting: Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.

Just something additional to you and a number of others who use this as an argument, what SS rejects and other sites take, are not connected. The fact that DT and FT and DP (or anyone else) might take something, has nothing to do with what SS or IS will accept.

I get things accepted on SS that are regularly rejected on IS. Not as many are on IS but were rejected on SS. The reviews on those two sites are stricter than the rest. From my past experience.

I don't bother with the rest of the places anymore. Getting accepted is only the second step (creation is the first) Third is, will the images get downloads? So if someplace takes every little thing I submit and makes few or no sales, what's the point?

3rd is more important than image counts in portfolio, rejections or anything else. Bottom line is downloads and income, the rest is just conversation.

Quote from: Megastock on July 30, 2013, 12:37
Interesting - I had a batch of 14 images all rejected this morning for the same lighting/composition reason. At the same time, all 14 accepted on DT (and other sites) so I can't be totally out to lunch on exposure and lighting!

Gel-O Shooter · « **Reply #15 on:** July 31, 2013, 16:51 »

Thanks for posting. I thought it was just me. Of the last 50 I have submitted, SS accepted exactly 5. Same old lighting/composition thing. I'm not a newbie either....for the past 5 years my acceptance rate has always been at least 50-90% on everything I sent them. Seems like someone or someones high on the totem pole may have recently decided that 25 million is enough for now?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #16 on:** July 31, 2013, 16:56 »

Quote from: Gel-O Shooter on July 31, 2013, 16:51

Thanks for posting. I thought it was just me. Of the last 50 I have submitted, SS accepted exactly 5. Same old lighting/composition thing. I'm not a newbie either....for the past 5 years my acceptance rate has always been at least 50-90% on everything I sent them. Seems like someone or someones high on the totem pole may have recently decided that 25 million is enough for now?

28,084,565 royalty-free stock images / 184,743 new stock images added this week

Travelling-light · « **Reply #17 on:** July 31, 2013, 18:41 »

We also had our last batch 100% rejected - 21 files, all lighting.

The funny thing is, had noticed similar files were selling well, so thought we'd give them a few more

In spite of that, we're ATM cents from a BME, so can't complain too much.

gostwyck · « **Reply #18 on:** July 31, 2013, 19:42 »

Quote from: Travelling-light on July 31, 2013, 18:41

We also had our last batch 100% rejected - 21 files, all lighting.

The funny thing is, had noticed similar files were selling well, so thought we'd give them a few more

In spite of that, we're ATM cents from a BME, so can't complain too much.

That's patently ridiculous (obviously I know the quality of your work). Definitely a rogue reviewer or two has crept into SS. My latest batch has just passed 100% so thankfully I managed to avoid them on this occasion.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: All batches rejected? (Read 5840 times)

gwolters

CD123

disorderly

gwolters

gostwyck

disorderly

gwolters

Ron

Megastock

gwolters

luissantos84

heywoody

zeamonkey

Uncle Pete

ruxpriencdiam

Gel-O Shooter

luissantos84

Travelling-light

gostwyck

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors