pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Inconsistent reviewing  (Read 34372 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« on: August 15, 2013, 03:32 »
+8
I really don't understand SS's reviewing. You can send a whole batch and they all get accepted or a whole batch (like just now) that gets rejected. To me this depends who you get. To get images taken in decent light AND  edited in Lightroom 4 to be rejected on the basis of poor lighting is quite ridiculous. What more are you meant to do ? At least IS are not over picky any more. Oh well, I will submit them a few weeks down the line and hope to get them in as I have done in the past.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 03:34 by Herg »


Beppe Grillo

« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2013, 04:26 »
0
As reviewers are not machines (I hope) they are subject to error. It can happen.
When it happens I answer to the rejection email asking a new review.
90% of the times the images are then accepted (if they are good).

suwanneeredhead

  • O.I.D. Sufferer (Obsessive Illustration Disorder)
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2013, 15:47 »
+3
To get images taken in decent light AND  edited in Lightroom 4 to be rejected on the basis of poor lighting is quite ridiculous.
ROFL, that statement is quite ridiculous. It's the camera and Lightroom that make the image, huh?!  Reminds me of that cartoon where the bird says to the photographer bird, "Your camera takes nice pictures" and the photographer bird says, "Your mouth makes really nice compliments."

« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2013, 16:08 »
0
To get images taken in decent light AND  edited in Lightroom 4 to be rejected on the basis of poor lighting is quite ridiculous.

ROFL, that statement is quite ridiculous. It's the camera and Lightroom that make the image, huh?!  Reminds me of that cartoon where the bird says to the photographer bird, "Your camera takes nice pictures" and the photographer bird says, "Your mouth makes really nice compliments."


LOL, good one!  Reminds me of something that Eve Arnold said .. It is the photographer, not the camera, that is the instrument .. read here fascinating post

http://bintphotobooks.blogspot.se/2012/01/it-is-photographer-not-camera-that-is.html

« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2013, 08:59 »
+1
I sent in a batch and had about 90% rejected.  it was of isolated guns.  Here's one.  "We can't accept this due to copyright", but they can have thousands of competitive ones for sale that I am not allowed to compete against.  So I contacted them because I shot a whole series on gun control. I pointed them to many examples of competitive images, although mostly isolations on white, as reference points.  They came back and said do not reup.  Today months later, their collection is still full of isolated gun shots.  By the way, some of mine were also simple isolations on while as well.  No luck.  So like any agency, they do have a double standard.  And if you fall into that double standard category you will get high rejections as well.

 


gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #5 on: August 22, 2013, 19:47 »
+4
I had an image rejected for "poor lighting" that is a horizontal version of a vertical shot that sold twice on the first day it was uploaded, and was shot under the same conditions, 5 seconds after, processed the same, etc. So when i uploaded a few more from that series I put it back in... it was accepted and surprise, surprise, in 2 days has sold 7 times including an OD.  I don't often do that but in this case I knew they were wrong.

You can always offer the files to DT exclusively. pity iS doesn't let us offer certain files as exclusives.

« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2013, 04:02 »
+8
When I get a reject from SS I usually offer it to DT exclusively. It's worked out well. Some of those files have earned me a substantial amount.

Sometimes SS makes mistakes but it is weird how it will be a whole bunch that are rejected at once. I rarely get rejections from SS but I had three images - my entire submission - rejected last week for "poor lighting." They were sunset images (with interesting foregrounds, silhouettes, nice water reflecting the light, etc.). I may resubmit them in a couple of weeks. The point is though, the "lighting" was not poor. It was beautiful. I wonder sometimes if it's just a lazy reviewer who doesn't even bother to look at some in order to just get through their quota of images for the day.

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #7 on: August 29, 2013, 13:19 »
+3
Again, a whole batch all bar one rejected. Gutted. One was a beautifully lit flower that I can't see anything wrong with the lighting, composition etc. They do not know what they are doing and I am sorry but being a photographer for 28 years I think I have an idea about composition etc. I think they just have a quota to pass/reject and stick to it weather the image is good or not. I edit in Lightroom so I always fix anything in the lighting. IS sells much better for me than SS. I have manage to add a lot of images to SS this year (only recently getting mass rejections) and it still doesn't make a difference to the weedy 33 cents per image sales. As for sending rejections as exclusive to DT- forget it. DT sales are truly awful.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 13:22 by Herg »

« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2013, 13:49 »
0
@herg - why not post the image fullsize but watermarked to, say, Dropbox and put the link to the image here? Maybe someone at this community here will spot what it is that you have missed or be able to make useful suggestions which will help improve your chances of getting stuff through inspection.

@mantis - I am guessing that the distinctive pattern on the stock of that shotgun counts as branding.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 14:07 by bhr »

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2013, 14:17 »
+4
I'm a vector artist, but sometimes a whole batch of my jpg versions of vector files will be rejected while the eps files are accepted. Happened this week...all jpgs rejected for "rough edges" (I always export jpgs the same way), while the eps files were accepted. I think there's just a photo reviewer there who has his or her finger on the "reject" button.

I just resubmit them, and they're usually accepted the second time around when someone else looks at them.

« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2013, 17:58 »
0
Maybe they are testing out some sort of automatic pre-review... I had an out of focus sparkly background rejected for focus...

It should be obvious to anyone who has been submitting microstock for any time that reviews are not completely consistent.

I am guessing re: the guns they have tightened their criteria but they either don't want to or haven't removed the old content that wouldn't pass now. They did a similar thing with vehicles a while back if I remember correctly.

mr

« Reply #11 on: August 30, 2013, 04:50 »
0
Happened to me with last batch. All pictures rejected with "poor lighting" reason...  >:(

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #12 on: August 30, 2013, 07:15 »
0
@herg - why not post the image fullsize but watermarked to, say, Dropbox and put the link to the image here? Maybe someone at this community here will spot what it is that you have missed or be able to make useful suggestions which will help improve your chances of getting stuff through inspection.

@mantis - I am guessing that the distinctive pattern on the stock of that shotgun counts as branding.

With all respect I have a pretty good idea of what I am doing and this issue is clearly affecting a lot more than myself. Istock did this a couple of years ago with almost 100% rejections which now results in 100% acceptance.

« Reply #13 on: August 30, 2013, 08:54 »
0
They did a similar thing with vehicles a while back if I remember correctly.

the same with green tractors and green agricultural machinery, because the green is associated to "john deere" brand. they don't accept anymore but have the catalog full of them.

Ron

« Reply #14 on: August 30, 2013, 09:07 »
+2
I had 3 images of an ATM, with me and without me, same camera settings, manual focus, tripod, release cable, timer, etc. Tack sharp, image with me in at the ATM accepted, without me, rejected for focus, whilst the image is exactly the same only difference is me in the frame. All 3 images are tack sharp. Why accept one, and reject two, all identical quality? And I find they always get accepted second time around.

Another one, image of a rusty metal plate, in monochrome accepted, in color rejected for focus. Its the same image. If monochrome is sharp, then so is the color version. Or something has changed in Lightroom and conversion to monochrome now sharpens an image.

« Reply #15 on: August 30, 2013, 17:47 »
0
Maybe they don't want 3 of the atm or a colour / mono version of the same thing and just hit the focus button?

Ron

« Reply #16 on: August 30, 2013, 19:29 »
0
Maybe they don't want 3 of the atm or a colour / mono version of the same thing and just hit the focus button?

They have a similar button, and the ATM was one horizontal, one vertical, and one with me taking money. Its not overkill, its a normal edited series. Weird.


« Reply #17 on: August 31, 2013, 01:26 »
0
Funny how the rejections suddenly go up when the que starts getting lower.

Rejections that call for resubmission = double, triple, quadruple money for reviewers depending on how creative they get with finding reasons for rejections.

« Reply #18 on: September 08, 2013, 06:19 »
+4
I don't resubmit anymore... too much work. Take it or leave it.

« Reply #19 on: September 08, 2013, 06:25 »
0
   I had a file rejected with "this file was previously rejected. Do not resubmit". It was the first submission. I didn't resubmit this particular file, but sent an email to them, because I read this rejections could turn in warnings. One week and no answer...

« Reply #20 on: September 08, 2013, 07:23 »
0
I too, am trying to figure SS reviewers out.

A recent batch of 30 images and 25 were rejected, almost exclusively because of "poor focus or focus not where we feel it should be". Those same 30 images were all accepted by DP and 123RF (I'm waiting for DT's reaction).

Disappointing because I just bought a Sigma 18-250mm zoom lens and, in my opinion, its sharp as a tack replacing my 55-250mm Canon lens which is slightly soft when you're zoomed in all the way.

I don't bother resubmitting. I've adopted a "take it or leave it" attitude with SS. Hoop jumping isn't worth that $0.30 commission.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #21 on: September 08, 2013, 08:17 »
+2
I too, am trying to figure SS reviewers out.

A recent batch of 30 images and 25 were rejected, almost exclusively because of "poor focus or focus not where we feel it should be". Those same 30 images were all accepted by DP and 123RF (I'm waiting for DT's reaction).

Disappointing because I just bought a Sigma 18-250mm zoom lens and, in my opinion, its sharp as a tack replacing my 55-250mm Canon lens which is slightly soft when you're zoomed in all the way.

I don't bother resubmitting. I've adopted a "take it or leave it" attitude with SS. Hoop jumping isn't 55-250worth that $0.30 commission.
18-250 is pushing the optics a bit more then the 55-250 and even then that is still pushing it a bit, and they are slow glass.

Also the canon lens is still much sharper then the sigma and has less fringing look at the two side by side comparisons.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=456&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=3&LensComp=490&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=3

« Reply #22 on: September 08, 2013, 10:14 »
0
We agree to disagree....regardless. SS rejected 90%
of my batch because of "poor focus" issues. That same
batch had a 100% acceptence from DP and 123RF.

Are DP and 123rf standards really that much lower?

« Reply #23 on: September 08, 2013, 10:21 »
+1
We agree to disagree....regardless. SS rejected 90%
of my batch because of "poor focus" issues. That same
batch had a 100% acceptence from DP and 123RF.

Are DP and 123rf standards really that much lower?

no doubt there

tab62

« Reply #24 on: September 08, 2013, 10:35 »
-1
Does anyone have Consistent Reviewing?  :-\




 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
4284 Views
Last post May 07, 2008, 14:23
by melastmohican
9 Replies
3669 Views
Last post August 13, 2008, 07:32
by ichiro17
5 Replies
2245 Views
Last post September 18, 2013, 10:02
by ruxpriencdiam
12 Replies
5048 Views
Last post November 23, 2013, 04:56
by BaldricksTrousers
3 Replies
5401 Views
Last post November 20, 2018, 05:26
by Not Today

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors