Author Topic: Inconsistent reviewing (Read 36077 times)

Mantis · « **Reply #150 on:** November 29, 2013, 11:49 »

Quote from: Copidosoma on November 29, 2013, 11:44

Quote from: Ron on November 29, 2013, 08:06
Maybe the image I took looks better during blue hour, that doesnt mean the WB is off when its shot at a later time. It also cant be that ALL night time images have to shot at blue hour for them be acceptable. Its nonsense.

I will shoot it at sunset and blue hour, since everyone is raving about it, including me. It was always my intention to shoot the image at sunset, its just that when I visited my friend and had my cam with me, it was night, and it looked like good panorama to me. Regardless of the blue hour.

I think that much of the time people get stuck on the "rules" a bit too much. Cityscapes need to be shot at the blue hour, everything must fit in the rule of thirds, all that stuff. I tend to agree that these make for pleasing images but seriously, is it truly forbidden to create an image that breaks those rules? Especially for less than $1?

What if Ron's image is a generally accurate rendition of how the sky above that place actually looks? Does every landscape have to look like it was taken with once in a lifetime lighting? Or has been processed in photoshop for an hour?

Again, why not let the buyers decide? Most people are pretty happy with cell phone pictures. Some clients even want that look. Why not work just slightly outside the box occasionally?

Very we'll stated.

Me · « **Reply #151 on:** November 29, 2013, 11:57 »

Quote from: Copidosoma on November 29, 2013, 11:44

Quote from: Ron on November 29, 2013, 08:06
Maybe the image I took looks better during blue hour, that doesnt mean the WB is off when its shot at a later time. It also cant be that ALL night time images have to shot at blue hour for them be acceptable. Its nonsense.

I will shoot it at sunset and blue hour, since everyone is raving about it, including me. It was always my intention to shoot the image at sunset, its just that when I visited my friend and had my cam with me, it was night, and it looked like good panorama to me. Regardless of the blue hour.

I think that much of the time people get stuck on the "rules" a bit too much. Cityscapes need to be shot at the blue hour, everything must fit in the rule of thirds, all that stuff. I tend to agree that these make for pleasing images but seriously, is it truly forbidden to create an image that breaks those rules? Especially for less than $1?

What if Ron's image is a generally accurate rendition of how the sky above that place actually looks? Does every landscape have to look like it was taken with once in a lifetime lighting? Or has been processed in photoshop for an hour?
Again, why not let the buyers decide? Most people are pretty happy with cell phone pictures. Some clients even want that look. Why not work just slightly outside the box occasionally?

Maybe it does, to sell on microstock

bunhill · « **Reply #152 on:** November 29, 2013, 12:14 »

^^^ I always think you are Me

/OT

stockastic · « **Reply #153 on:** November 29, 2013, 13:08 »

Quote from: Copidosoma on November 29, 2013, 11:44

...I tend to agree that these make for pleasing images but seriously, is it truly forbidden to create an image that breaks those rules? Especially for less than $1?

Again, why not let the buyers decide? Most people are pretty happy with cell phone pictures. Some clients even want that look. Why not work just slightly outside the box occasionally?

In a nutshell.

The thread started with a "lighting" rejection and quickly turned into a discussion of the aesthetics of twighlight cityscapes. But Microstock didn't get started as an art school project.

I just did a skyline shot of Minneapolis, in the middle of the day, and got it accepted. I hope to make a few dollars if I'm lucky. Sorry, but at 35 cents per sale I didn't feel I could rent a crane, or a helicopter, or pursue building owners for rooftop access, or spend 90 minutes waiting for that perfect light, or an hour in Photoshop. Maybe it's just me.

Who is going to lavish all this time, attention and skill on producing gallery quality shots for these pathetic returns? I think the answer is: lots of people, now, but fewer and fewer over time.

gbalex · « **Reply #154 on:** December 01, 2013, 12:08 »

Quote from: Ron on November 24, 2013, 07:42

Quote from: heywoody on November 24, 2013, 06:31
I don't think the incompetent reviewers argument holds water, SS are simply more picky than the other mainstream sites and can afford to be.

I agree that they are more picky, however, it still doesnt explain why some contributors get so many rejections when their work is impeccable, and its hard to believe that with a portfolio of 2000 images and being a 5 year contributor to SS, all of a sudden you produce crap.

I dont believe in an automated process either, so it must be the reviewer then?

I have been thinking about this. Laurin Rinder has been a reviewer at SS and he says he would judge the image as a whole, i.e. if it had shadows but it added to the composition or story, he would pass it. I think if you have a young inexperienced reviewer, he would reject that same image, because it has shadows, not understanding that the shadows are part of the composition.

Just my two cents.

Rinder did/does not review at SS. I agree new reviewers may reject images that a more seasoned reviewer would accept. And they may also reject imgaes that a bot would flag when a more seasoned reviewer would find them acceptable.

Some sites pay more for rejections, the premise being that the reviewer should take more time to examine the image before rejecting it.

Ron · « **Reply #155 on:** December 01, 2013, 12:22 »

Laurin reviewed for 3 years, and I believe it was at SS. Where did he review then?

Ron · « **Reply #156 on:** December 01, 2013, 12:30 »

Found this, but no answer

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/what-site-does-rinder-review-at/

gbalex · « **Reply #157 on:** December 01, 2013, 12:33 »

Quote from: Ron on November 29, 2013, 08:41

Quote from: JPSDK on November 29, 2013, 08:14
you should rather go down in the streets and get an object of interest in the main foreground, or hire a goodyear airship to pass through the foreground.

Yeah, people keep saying that, but the whole point of the image is the unique elevated view point.

If someone wants to take a photo of a rose, you dont tell him to shoot horses.

I buy many images from specific locations. If your image fit the location I was looking for I would not rule it out for color balance issues.

I would pick the best images based on perspective and clean technical quality and then adjust the red color channel. You keep getting rejections for over saturated reds. I would hazard to guess you shoot with a canon which has a sensor that tends to over saturate reds.

If your reviewer has a preference for desaturated reds you have the option to accommodate in post.

calcaneus10 · « **Reply #158 on:** December 02, 2013, 20:47 »

From my own experience, yes, Shutterstock does mess up on occasion. I submit on average 30-50 images per day with around 99% acceptance rate. But once every month, some overzealous reviewer rejects the entire batch for some "focus" issue when in reality, there was no "focus" issue to begin with. When I resubmit the images (I don't leave an extra note for the reviewer), they all get accepted. And they sell the very same day that they are accepted. So in my opinion, SS loses money every time Attila the Hun reviews. It just doesn't make sense.

On Dreamstime, their ridiculous "you have excessive white space" rule just drives me crazy. If copy space sells so well on SS, why Dreamstime do you think your customers don't want and can add their own space? Even then, they accept copy space on 80% of the images I submit. AND their customers buy it with that "excessive space". If DT didn't pay out credits as often as they do, I would have stopped submitting a long time ago.

topol · « **Reply #159 on:** December 03, 2013, 04:41 »

Quote from: stockastic on November 29, 2013, 13:08

Quote from: Copidosoma on November 29, 2013, 11:44
...I tend to agree that these make for pleasing images but seriously, is it truly forbidden to create an image that breaks those rules? Especially for less than $1?

Again, why not let the buyers decide? Most people are pretty happy with cell phone pictures. Some clients even want that look. Why not work just slightly outside the box occasionally?

In a nutshell.

The thread started with a "lighting" rejection and quickly turned into a discussion of the aesthetics of twighlight cityscapes. But Microstock didn't get started as an art school project.

I just did a skyline shot of Minneapolis, in the middle of the day, and got it accepted. I hope to make a few dollars if I'm lucky. Sorry, but at 35 cents per sale I didn't feel I could rent a crane, or a helicopter, or pursue building owners for rooftop access, or spend 90 minutes waiting for that perfect light, or an hour in Photoshop. Maybe it's just me.

Who is going to lavish all this time, attention and skill on producing gallery quality shots for these pathetic returns? I think the answer is: lots of people, now, but fewer and fewer over time.

An hour in photoshop?? Blue hour and similar ****scape shots are some of the easiest to process. Apply some partial noise reduction if needed, and that's it. 1.5 minutes. Most of the time you don't even need that, since shooting long with the lowest iso. I had a pleasant walk in the beautiful historic part of the city with one the gals, planted my tripod at a few places, enjoyed the view meanwhile, we had nice walk back & some fancy street food. What's so horrific about that? I was surrounded by tourists who even payed thousands of $ for the same thing. I would have done it even without taking shots. Ohh, I uploaded the shots to stocksy instead of SS, so instead of making 0.38... they made nothing. They come from spring, so several months now.

Red Dove · « **Reply #160 on:** December 03, 2013, 06:34 »

The secret is to buy a poodle and shoot it every which way, without worrying if it looks grey or blown out or in need of a bath.

Mantis · « **Reply #161 on:** December 03, 2013, 08:28 »

Quote from: Ron on December 01, 2013, 12:22

Laurin reviewed for 3 years, and I believe it was at SS. Where did he review then?

I know where, and it wasn't SS...........it's not in any of the top tier.

Ron · « **Reply #162 on:** December 03, 2013, 09:15 »

Quote from: Mantis on December 03, 2013, 08:28

Quote from: Ron on December 01, 2013, 12:22
Laurin reviewed for 3 years, and I believe it was at SS. Where did he review then?

I know where, and it wasn't SS...........it's not in any of the top tier.

Ok thanks for clearing that up Mantis !

Tryingmybest · « **Reply #163 on:** December 21, 2013, 21:03 »

Yeah, my rejections are increasing and frustrating too. Up and down. What SS rejects, another takes...and vice-a-versa

Hang on to them, make some changes and resubmit at a later date.

Quote from: Herg on August 15, 2013, 03:32

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.

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #164 on:** December 22, 2013, 06:14 »

It goes on as before…
Always rejections for absurd and inconsistent reasons…
Just ask an another review and the images are all accepted…

This is absolutely not normal

Shutterstock has a real problem I think…
And it is becoming our problem

Here I pay for each bit that I upload (no unlimited internet forfait), and for each bit that I re-upload.
I agree to pay for my errors.
But I don't agree to pay for the mistakes of somebody else.

wordplanet · « **Reply #165 on:** December 22, 2013, 15:26 »

I had one entitled "Vintage Christmas cookie cutters" rejected because the title wasn't in English LOL

Guess the reviewer just went eeney, meeney, miney, mo to pick a reason.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #166 on:** December 23, 2013, 13:48 »

Just had a whole batch of jpgs rejected for "excessive noise," though they're just the jpg versions of my accepted vectors. No noise, of course. Just a cranky photo reviewer. Maybe photo reviewers need more coffee in the morning? I'm cranky without my caffeine.

Ron · « **Reply #167 on:** December 23, 2013, 13:54 »

4 editorials rejected for model release and trademark.

Red Dove · « **Reply #168 on:** December 23, 2013, 14:38 »

Quote from: Ron on December 23, 2013, 13:54

4 editorials rejected for model release and trademark.

That's a poor review if submitted correctly as editorial, not to mention a waste of your time.

PS. At least you had a review. Your mate Barry will be a fossil by the time he gets his stuff looked at - apparently.

ShadySue · « **Reply #169 on:** December 23, 2013, 14:59 »

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on December 22, 2013, 06:14

It goes on as before…
Always rejections for absurd and inconsistent reasons…
Just ask an another review and the images are all accepted…

This is absolutely not normal

Shutterstock has a real problem I think…
And it is becoming our problem

Here I pay for each bit that I upload (no unlimited internet forfait), and for each bit that I re-upload.
I agree to pay for my errors.
But I don't agree to pay for the mistakes of somebody else.

I agree; I don't see why they can't keep them, at least for e.g. a month, to give you a chance to sort out their mistakes.

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #170 on:** December 23, 2013, 16:23 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 23, 2013, 14:59

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on December 22, 2013, 06:14
It goes on as before…
Always rejections for absurd and inconsistent reasons…
Just ask an another review and the images are all accepted…

This is absolutely not normal

Shutterstock has a real problem I think…
And it is becoming our problem

Here I pay for each bit that I upload (no unlimited internet forfait), and for each bit that I re-upload.
I agree to pay for my errors.
But I don't agree to pay for the mistakes of somebody else.

I agree; I don't see why they can't keep them, at least for e.g. a month, to give you a chance to sort out their mistakes.

It could be a good idea, yes.
Even if a month is maybe too much.
I think that they reject more photos that they accept, so they could fill they HDs very fast

zeamonkey · « **Reply #171 on:** January 07, 2014, 02:50 »

LOL just had a full batch of shallow DOP rejected for excessive noise reduction. Nice work SS bot!

JPSDK · « **Reply #172 on:** January 07, 2014, 06:47 »

I just had 2 out of 6 images rejected for focus.
The reviewer was perfectly right.

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #173 on:** January 07, 2014, 07:22 »

5 images with warm morning winter light, little fog and horizontal shadows…

Try to guess?

Rejected for incorrect white balance!…

(These images have been accepted by any other site, of course)

JPSDK · « **Reply #174 on:** January 07, 2014, 08:08 »

Beppe.
They are middlemen.
Imagine them driving around (in an old vauxhall) and visit customers, they bring a portfolio with them to show.
Of course they want to spook the costumers with state of the art ( and all that BS) imagery so the costumer is impressed.

Beppe... they are just middlemen with a concept, let them live their life.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Inconsistent reviewing (Read 36077 times)

Mantis

Me

bunhill

stockastic

gbalex

Ron

Ron

gbalex

calcaneus10

topol

Red Dove

Mantis

Ron

Tryingmybest

Beppe Grillo

wordplanet

Shelma1

Ron

Red Dove

ShadySue

Beppe Grillo

zeamonkey

JPSDK

Beppe Grillo

JPSDK

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors